February 10th, 2014
11:00 AM ET
Share this on:

Starbucks to Dumb Starbucks: You can't use our trademark

The real Starbucks isn't happy with the parody coffee shop calling itself Dumb Starbucks that's popped up in Los Angeles, and wants the faux baristas to drop the act.

"We appreciate the humor but they can't use our name," Starbucks spokesman Jim Olson told CNNMoney. "It's a protected trademark. It's our trademark."

The shop called Dumb Starbucks opened its doors this weekend in L.A. and the baristas gave away free coffee until they ran out, according to news reports. Located in a strip mall next to a laundromat, the shop reportedly mimics the Starbucks menu, but places the word "dumb" in front of every product.

Read - Starbucks to Dumb Starbucks: Don't use our trademark

Woman lives on Starbucks food for a year because...

Posted by:
Filed under: Chain • Restaurants • Starbucks

soundoff (8 Responses)
  1. shawn l

    Actually they can use it for parody purposes, they weren't making money off it.

    February 11, 2014 at 7:45 am |
    • SeanG

      Parody laws apply to copyrights, like music and art, not trademarks.

      February 11, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
      • shawn l

        That is incorrect.
        Many courts have applied the traditional likelihood of confusion test to parodies. Even though parody is not a defense to a claim of trademark infringement, courts have noted in the context of the likelihood of confusion test (either as a separate fact or or in relation to the other factors) that a successful parody will rarely be considered infringing, since the ultimate object of a parody is to amuse, not confuse. See, e.g.
        , Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players’ Ass’n , 95 F.3d 959, 967 (10th Cir. 1996). While likelihood of confusi on tests differ among jurisdictions, many tests include the following factors:

        a. Strength of the mark;
        b. Similarity of the marks;
        c. Proximity of the goods;
        d Quality of defendant’s product;
        e. Likelihood that plaintiff will enter the product market of the alleged infringer under the same mark;
        f. Evidence of actual confusion;
        g. Marketing channels used;
        h.Defendant’s intent;
        i.Sophistication of buyers.

        February 12, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
        • Your Neighborhood Pharmacist

          *leans over the counter towards shawn*
          Here's some Midol and a Special Dark chocolate bar, honey. Now go have a good cry.

          February 13, 2014 at 7:40 am |
        • miss nobody

          thank you shawn. you're totally correct. too bad other people can't wrap their head around it when presented with well put-together facts and have to resort to being d*cks because they feel dumb.. lol.

          February 13, 2014 at 9:36 am |
  2. Jdizzle McHammerpants ♫♫

    Sounds to me that someone has too much money on their hands and a terrible sense of humor.

    Close the doors and mail a fat check to me at PO Box 69, Jomomma, Texas.

    February 10, 2014 at 5:28 pm |
  3. Missing Something

    They couldn't come up with a better name? What was the point?

    February 10, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
    • Brian

      It's a joke that blew up too big for season 2 of "Nathan for You" on comedy central. Hilarious show by the way.

      February 11, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
| Part of