This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
BRAND PROFILE: STARBUCKS


“THE DECISION TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST AN ALLEGED INFRINGER IS DONE ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, WITH ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS BEING THAT THE DISPUTE IS CLEARLY ‘WINNABLE’.”


LLC and registered its name as a trademark with Rospatent, the body responsible for administering patent and trademark applications in Russia. Zuikov opened coffee shops in Moscow


that looked similar to Starbucks’s and even tried to sell the trademark to the US company for $600,000. Instead, Starbucks brought a cancellation action against Zuikov and was successful in blocking the trademark. Closer to home, Starbucks has not always been


that fortunate. An infringement claim Starbucks filed against Black Bear Micro Roastery, a coffee shop based in New Hampshire, for selling ‘Charbucks’ coffee, failed. In November 2013, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit


rejected Starbucks’s claim that the product would confuse consumers and dismissed its requested injunction. Monitoring many jurisdictions can be a


difficult task, with Teraberry saying: “We have of course to make sure that we haven’t been late to evaluate applications and make sure no-one registers something we consider infringing. “We’re in 65 countries with 150,000 employees,


and they can send information. So we have to have investigators on the ground in more problematic countries. “Ten we’re going to registries, purchasing


domain names, and seeing what’s out there and looking at our strategy and looking at some of


the new digital stuff and deciding what’s the biggest threat. “China is one of the most difficult places to


protect our brand, as well as Turkey, Mexico, India and Indonesia, where we have a lot of cases. Tey are the most difficult to resolve,” she adds. It’s one of the downsides of being a recognisable


brand across the world. Whenever Starbucks enters into a new market, there is a sudden surge of individuals and businesses attempting to trade off its reputation by filing bad-faith trademark applications associated with the Starbucks brand. Teraberry says: “If we open in a new market


such as India, then we start dealing with infringements in that area. We’ve had more cases


38 World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2015


www.worldipreview.com


Testing / Shutterstock.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100