starbucks – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Stories about: "starbucks"

Starbucks Joins The List Of Companies Using Trademark Law To Bully Its Own Union

from the not-how-that-works dept

The trend continues. One of the things we’ve noticed more frequently as of late has been larger companies attempting to use trademark law as some kind of cudgel against employee unions. This has taken several forms, from Wal-Mart attempting to shut down a union website for accurately calling itself a union of Wal-Mart employees, Medieval Times trying to shutter a website and merch for its performers’ union for the same reason, and Trader Joes attacking its employees’ union ostensibly for similar reasons, but really it just wanted to cause as much trouble and pain for the union as possible.

This case is admittedly different and, arguably, worse. In this case, Starbucks has threatened Starbucks Workers United with a trademark lawsuit principally, it appears, because the union started tweeting things the company doesn’t like about Gaza.

Starbucks is threatening to sue Starbucks Workers United, the union that represents employees of the coffee conglomerate, for trademark infringement following the union’s ‘Solidarity with Palestine!’ tweet.

Last week, a letter was sent to the president of the union demanding that the union ‘immediately cease and desist’ from using the company’s name and logo or the company will pursue legal action ‘including without limitation monetary damages.’

The tweet has since been deleted, but it read “Solidarity with Palestine!” and was sent in the midst of Israel’s response to a horrific terror attack launched by Hamas out of the Gaza Strip. Now, there is a lot to discuss about the history leading up to this conflict, actions that have been taken on both sides of the equation here, and all the rest. But this is not the forum for that discussion. Nor is the union’s opinion on matters of geo-politics in any way trespassing into the realm of trademark law. In other words, the union’s activities don’t suddenly become trademark infringement simply because it tweeted out something Starbucks doesn’t like, even if you don’t like it either.

It appears the lawyers for Starbucks don’t understand that.

The lawyers wrote that because the union had made ‘statements advocating for violence in the Middle East,’ they must change their name, website address, social media accounts, merchandise, and anything else the features their logo.

The union president Lynne Fox wrote in a response that the company had not managed to ‘identify any such statement.’ She added that Starbucks Workers United is affiliated with SEIU, the president of which issued a statement that read:

‘The violence in Israel and Palestine is unconscionable. @SEIU stands with all who are suffering, while strongly condemning anti-Semitism, Islamophobia & hate in all forms.’

This is a complete non-starter and I’ll be surprised if any lawsuit is actually filed. That being said, executives at the company are insisting a lawsuit will be filed in federal court over all of this. If it does, it will clearly be a lawsuit designed to stop the speech rights of the union through punitive action.

And all the same arguments as to why the union is not infringing simply by calling itself a union for laborers of the company, nor is the branding it chose for itself that has some similarity to the corporate branding, because nobody will be mislead or confused as to the affiliation of a big company and the union it desperately wishes didn’t exist.

Filed Under: bullying, free speech, gaza, hamas, israel, palestine, trademark, unions
Companies: starbucks, starbucks workers united

Woman Who Refused To Wear Mask At Starbucks Wants Half The $100k In Tip Money Barista Got From GoFundMe Campaign

from the wear-a-mask dept

I know you’ve heard this before, but just so we’re all clear: wear a fucking mask, people. It’s truly not that big of a deal. I wear one at work any time I am not seated in my office. It’s crazy easy and you can even get a little fun out of it by wearing a personalized one like our Techdirt masks.

But, if you’re not going to wear a mask, don’t also be an insufferable jerk like Amber Gilles. Amber got really mad when a Starbucks barista named Lenin Gutierrez refused to serve her because she wasn’t in a mask. She decided to take a picture of Gutierrez and post it on Facebook, complaining about it. When the internet saw the post, it did its thing.

A stranger in Orange County, Matt Cowan, said he wanted to donate a few dollars to the barista in tip money, so he started a GoFundMe. As the photo on Facebook filled with hundreds of thousands of interactions and comments from people supporting the barista, the tip money eventually hit more than $100,000 to be donated to the barista. Lenin said he plans to use that money to further his education and also follow his dreams of dancing.

It should have ended there: a nice little story about the kindness of strangers responding to one self-important dolt. But Amber Gilles claims that the real reason she refused to wear the mask is because medical conditions exempt her from the requirement. I’d normally point out that medical exemptions don’t necessarily remove a business’ right to refuse service by policy, but instead I think I’ll give you the deets on Gilles’ proof of her condition.

She went on to describe the symptoms that prevent her from wearing a mask, saying “One of them I get shortness of breath, dizziness and it messes with the heartbeat. And I do have asthma as well, and I do get mask-acne. So there’s several things going on and not only that but it doesn’t even work.”

She provided KGTV with two documents to prove her medical exemption. One is a pelvic exam from 2015 with results that say “probable exophytic fibroid arising from the anterior wall of the uterus measuring 2.9 cm size,” and “simple 2.5 cm left ovarian cyst.” A second piece of paper is a handwritten note with letterhead from a San Diego chiropractor who she asked not be named. The handwritten note reads “Amber has underlying breath conditions that prevent her from wearing a mask or any type of facial covering whatsoever. Please contact me if have any questions.”

I shouldn’t have had to do this, but the Mayo Clinic’s list of symptoms for uterine fibroids includes absolutely nothing about breathing. And no offense to chiropractors out there, but I somehow don’t think your scribbles mean Starbucks can’t require a mask to be serviced.

But the real upshot of all of this is that Gilles would like half of that GoFundMe money, please.

Gilles said she now wants half of that money.

“It was discrimination and everybody is OK with it and enabling and rewarding that behavior,” said Gilles.

That’s obviously not how any of this works. She could consider suing Starbucks, but she’d lose. Suing an employee for sticking to company policy doesn’t somehow mean you get half of a gift given to him by strangers. Also, lawyers are expensive, but Gilles has a plan for that.

Gilles said she’s spoken to a few lawyers about taking her case for getting half of the money but said they’re all expensive so she started her own GoFundMe to try to raise money.

Here’s hoping that the Starbucks barista is going to ask for half that money, too. It’s like a crowdfunding Inception!

Filed Under: amber gilles, covid-19, crowdfunding, entitlement, lenin gutierrez, masks
Companies: gofundme, starbucks

DailyDirt: More 'All Natural' Ingredients Are Coming…

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

A bunch of food companies are pledging to remove artificial colors and flavors from their products. We mentioned before that Starbucks tried a different color for its drinks and had a slight problem. While the FDA says there’s no link between artificial colors and any health issues, ultimately consumers are pushing for more natural ingredients and voting with their spending trends.

After you’ve finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: artificial coloring, coloring, dye, food, ingredients, nanodroplets, preservatives
Companies: fda, kraft, mars, starbucks

DailyDirt: All Natural Doesn't Necessarily Mean Good For You…

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

A growing trend in food packaging seems to be using the words “all natural” to describe ingredients. This is meant to be an improvement over the previous “completely artificial” ingredients that have been used for decades. However, as some point out, the use of natural ingredients doesn’t necessarily mean what consumers might think it means. Starbucks found out that “natural” might not satisfy all of its customers when it switched from Red #40 to a natural food coloring made from crushed insects. Those crushed insects aren’t harmful, but that’s not exactly what folks were expecting from a “natural” ingredient, either.

After you’ve finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: artificial, castoreum, coloring, flavoring, food, fragrance, gmo, natural, taste
Companies: chipotle, pizza hut, starbucks, taco bell, yum brands

Hacker Informs Starbucks Of Gift Card Exploit; Starbucks Accuses Hacker Of Fraud And Maliciousness

from the hackaccino dept

In a period of a couple of weeks we have already seen some rather strange stories about companies failing to make the best use of free security advice and information, and instead going on the attack. Here we go again, I guess. What this latest example lacks in terrifying flight maneuvers or disgusting internet grossness, it makes up for in pure pettiness. This is the story about how Starbucks was informed by a hacker that he’d discovered and proof-tested an exploit on the company’s gift card systems that allowed people to load twice as much money on a card as they were supposed to.

Egor Homakov found a flaw that let him duplicate funds on a gift card, which he spent in a store to test his theory. Mr Homakov worked out that making two web browsers transfer money between the same cards, at the same time, sometimes duplicated the transfer and added funds to a gift card that had not been paid for. After buying some drinks and a sandwich in a store to test if the process had worked, Mr Homakov topped up the card to repay the $1.70 (£1.10) he owed to the company.

Pretty solid, honest move, especially given that Homakov then informed Starbucks of the issue after reloading his card so as not to be costing the company even the meager couple-o-dollars it took to test his theory out in practice. As far as altruistic hackers, Homakov’s story is about as good as it gets. So of course Starbucks went on the attack.

He told Starbucks so they could fix the flaw, but said that the company had then called his actions “malicious”.

“The unpleasant part is a guy from Starbucks calling me with nothing like “thanks” but mentioning “fraud” and “malicious actions” instead,” he wrote.

A spokeswoman for Starbucks told BBC News: “After this individual reported he was able to commit fraudulent activity against Starbucks, we put safeguards in place to prevent replication.”

I have to say, even when most of these stories leave me thinking that the attacking companies would be better off taking the free security advice of people like Homakov, I can at least stretch myself to understand why they might let emotions get in the way of logical behavior. Maybe, like with airflight exploits, the danger is so great that the company just wants everyone to shut up while it gets its house in order. Or maybe, like when goatse ends up on your billboards, embarrassment takes over. But Starbucks’ actions are without explanation. Far from going on the attack, the coffee company should be praising and thanking Homakov and it should be counting itself lucky that the exploit was discovered by such a benevolent force rather than one with more mischievous intentions.

Hell, many companies pay for this kind of information. Resting on the fact that the hacker tested his theory before bringing the information to the company as an excuse to throw around legal threats is stupid. Maybe they need to put down the latte to calm the jitters or something.

Filed Under: egor homakov, hacking, responsible disclosure
Companies: starbucks

DailyDirt: If You're Into Weird Beers…

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There are thousands of different beers in the world, so it would take a while to try all of them. And at some point in a hypothetical exhaustive test taste, you’ll run into the problem of how to define what a beer really is. If you’re not too picky, here are a few kinds of beer-like beverages that you might want to try.

If you’d like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: alcohol, beer, beverages, corona, drinks, food, lemonade, reinheitsgebot
Companies: guinness, heineken, pat's backcountry beverages, starbucks

DailyDirt: Drinking The Most Expensive Coffee

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Some people really like to drink coffee and are willing to pay nearly any price to do so. There are probably cheaper ways to get caffeine into your system, but if you like the taste of coffee, you might want to try some exotic procedures that are meant to make the coffee drinking experience just so much better. Here are a few links on some cups of coffee you might want to try if you have the money.

If you’d like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: astronaut coffee, beverages, black ivory coffee, caffeine, coffee, elephants, food, isspresso, kopi luwak
Companies: starbucks

Dumb Starbucks Is Shut Down… For Reasons Entirely Unrelated To Questionable IP Usage

from the so-this-is-how-it-ends,-not-with-a-bang-but-with-a-bureaucrat dept

The Dumb Starbucks goes down, but for the least interesting reason possible. The sudden appearance of a coffee shop blatantly using Starbucks’ trademarks (with the word “dumb” appended) and claiming something called “parody law” would save it raised several questions. First and foremost was: who the hell thinks they can get away with this?

Anyone wishing for Dumb Starbucks to be a test case for “parody law” will be severely disappointed. The Dumb Starbucks in Los Angeles was just shut down, but the non-Dumb Starbucks legal team had nothing to do with it.

The Los Angeles County Health Department shut down the Dumb Starbucks on Monday just as the man behind the faux coffee shop in the Los Feliz neighborhood revealed he was the host of a Comedy Central TV show.

The shop was closed for operating without a health permit, the department told the Los Angeles Times. A sign was posted on the front window of the store on Hillhurst Avenue on Monday evening, saying it was closed for violations.

The whole thing was simply a stunt for a Comedy Central show starring Nathan Fielder, who held a “tongue-in-cheek” press conference while wearing one of the famous (Dumb) green aprons. According to him, Comedy Central is only now aware of his promotional stunt.

The only people who could possibly have been seriously hoping Dumb Starbucks would act as a test case for fair use and parody would be those who would like to see fair use weakened. The store’s “fact sheet,” which “cited” fair use and “parody law,” parked itself in the middle ground between ham-fisted and half-assed and gave every impression it was written by a copyright maximalist trying to be clever.

So, even if the abrupt end of the Dumb Starbucks franchise is rather anticlimactic, we can at least be grateful this publicity stunt didn’t make its way through the court system, where it could have generated some bad precedent with its disingenuous take on fair use. For better or worse, Fielder stated at his faux press conference that he was thinking of opening up another store in Brooklyn, something Comedy Central might want to keep an eye on, considering comedy sometime relies very heavily on parody.

Filed Under: fair use, nathan fielder, parody, trademark
Companies: comedy central, starbucks

Whether Dumb Starbucks Is A PR Stunt, A Joke Or Real… Its 'Parody' Claims Are Pretty Questionable

from the and-undermined-by-its-own-statements dept

There’s been a bunch of buzz making the rounds concerning the launch of the “Dumb Starbucks” coffee shop in LA — which looks just like a regular Starbucks, but with the word “Dumb” in front of everything.

And that includes the menu:

And the drink sizes:

And, yes, even the CDs the shop “sells” at the counter:

So, what’s going on? Lots of people are assuming some sort of PR stunt or prank. Starbucks insists it has nothing to do with it and that it’s not happy about it. A few have suggested that it’s a Banksy art project, but this seems to go way beyond his usual efforts. The most reasonable theory so far seems to be that it’s a prank for the Comedy Central show “Nathan For You.” It definitely seems to fit with similar pranks that the show has done before, as detailed on Hacker News.

That said, the operators of the coffee shop are claiming that it’s okay to do this because it’s a parody, as they explain in this FAQ:

If you can’t read it, here are the basics:

Is this a Starbucks?

No. Dumb Starbucks is not affiliated in any way with Starbucks Corporation. We are simply using their name and logo for marketing purposes.

How is that legal?

Short answer – parody law.

Can you elaborate?

Of course. By adding the word ‘dumb’, we are technically “making fun” of Starbucks, which allows us to use their trademarks under a law known as ‘fair use’. Fair use is a doctrine that permits use of copyrighted material in a parodical work without permission form the rights holder. It’s the same law that allows Weird Al Yankovic to use the music from Michael Jackson’s “Beat It” in his parody song “Eat It”.

So is this a real business?

Yes it is. Although we are a fully function coffee shop, for legal reasons Dumb Starbucks needs to be categorized as a work of parody art. So, in the eyes of the law, our “coffee shop” is actually an art gallery and the “coffee” you’re buying is considered art. But that for our lawyers to worry about. All you need to do is enjoy our delicious coffee!

Are you saying Starbucks is dumb?

Not at all. In fact, we love Starbucks and look up to them as role models. Unfortunately, the only way to use their intellectual property under fair use is if we are making fun of them. So the “dumb” comes out of necessity, not enmity.

That’s all very interesting, but looks more like it was written by someone mocking the concept of fair use rather than by anyone with a legal understanding of fair use. Beyond confusing copyrights and trademarks (both of which do have a fair use doctrine, though they’re somewhat different), by more or less admitting that they’re only doing this as a cover to be able to use Starbucks’ name, rather than as legitimate social commentary, they’re basically giving up their fair use defense. Not that it wouldn’t make an interesting case. As a big supporter of fair use, it’s still a little worrying when people pretend it allows for things that it almost certainly doesn’t allow for, as that leads to a cheapening of the concept of fair use.

Still, chances are this is all a prank that will be revealed shortly (perhaps by the time I get this post finally written, edited and posted…) and so the actual legal questions concerning whether this is parody will never be tested. However, it does make me wonder about ways that someone could legitimately use fair use within a retail setting to mock a rival.

Filed Under: copyright, dumb starbucks, parody, pr stunt, prank, trademark
Companies: dumb starbucks, starbucks

The Greatest Response To A Cease And Desist Letter, Probably Written While Drunk

from the cc:-mr.-bucks dept

Cross-posted from

This year certainly had its share of ups and downs in terms of lawyerly antics, but in our minds, 2013 shall forever be known as the year of the snarky cease and desist response letter. Back in June, we broke the news of the now famous response to a cease and desist letter received from the Town of West Orange, New Jersey, which went viral worldwide thanks to the power of sarcasm. A few months later, we wrote about an equally entertaining response to a cease and desist letter received from the American Bankers Association, rife with Spice Girls lyrics and Valley girl lingo.

It’s been a while since we wrote about one of these treasures, so we figured we’d close the year out with a bang. We discovered yet another amazing response to a cease and desist letter, and this one may be the greatest of them all — if only because we think its author might have been drunk while writing it….

Jeff Britton, the owner of Exit 6 Pub and Brewery in Cotteville, Missouri, received a cease and desist letter from none other than Starbucks, specifically from Anessa Owen Kramer of Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn, over a beer named “Frappicino.” As the world knows, the lords of coffee sell a frozen drink (a coffee Slurpee?) by the name of “Frappuccino.” Yes, the names are similar, but to be confused enough to think you could order the nectar of mall-hopping teenage girls at a bar, you’d have to be pretty drunk.

Rather than cower in fear over the legal consequences threatened by America’s coffee monarch, Britton decided it would be in his best interests to write a response on his own, without the assistance of legal counsel, because he didn’t need no stinkin’ lawyer. Here’s what he posted on the Exit 6 Facebook page:

So quick little story. Last week I received a cease and desist letter from the attorneys at Starbucks. Apparently there was a beer on Untappd that someone named “Frappicino”. 3 people had checked into said beer. 3. Starbucks [didn’t] like that. So I got a letter. They wanted me to remove the beer and promise never to use their names again. They also wanted my written response and guarantee. Here is their letter. And also my response.

Needless to say, Britton’s response is amazing — he even threw in some legalese, despite the fact that he’s not a lawyer (oh yeah, heretofore, baby). Here are some highlights from his letter (all errors included in the original). You’d have to be drunk to write something like this, right? Who cares, it’s freakin’ awesome:

Exit 6 has proudly sold at least 38 drinks in Cottleville MO and has a strong presence in St Charles county, a suburb 40 miles outside the St Louis metropolis. It has recently come to Exit 6 Pub and Brewerys attention that there were 3 check ins to the beer with a very similar name to the “F Word”. Unfortunately it was only similar to the F Word because we meant to call it the same thing. Lucky for us, we’re poor spelers.

I would like for both Ms Owen Kramer and Mr Bucks to rest assured we meant no deception, confusion, or mistaking in the naming of the beer F Word. We never thought that our beer drinking customers would have thought that the alcoholic beverage coming out of the tap would have actually been coffee from one of the many, many, many stores located a few blocks away. I guess that with there being a Starbucks on every corner of every block in every city that some people may think they could get a Starbucks at a local bar. So that was our mistake.

Mr. Bucks isn’t Ms. Owen Kramer’s co-counsel; no, this “poor speler” is addressing Mr. Star Bucks himself, as if he were an actual human being. We imagine Britton was at least six Frapps in at this point.

We haven’t even gotten to the best part yet. To show Mr. Bucks just how sorry he really was, Britton enclosed a check in the amount of Exit 6′s profits made from its “Frappicino” beer to be applied to Ms. Owen Kramer’s legal fees, which he admits were “probably … more than Exit 6 made last year.” Here it is:

Behold: the legal equivalent of a mic drop. Cheers to you, Jeff Britton! We raise a glass in your honor.

Filed Under: beer, cease and desist, coffee, frappicino, frappuccino, likelihood of confusion, trademark
Companies: exit 6 pub and brewery, starbucks