online prescription solutions
online discount medstore
pills online
buy lorazepam without prescription
xanax for sale
buy xanax without prescription
buy ambien without prescription
ambien for sale
buy modafinil without prescription
buy phentermine without prescription
modafinil for sale
phentermine for sale
lorazepam for sale
buy lexotan without prescription
bromazepam for sale
xenical for sale
buy stilnox without prescription
valium for sale
buy prosom without prescription
buy mefenorex without prescription
buy sildenafil citrate without prescription
buy adipex-p without prescription
librium for sale
buy restoril without prescription
buy halazepam without prescription
cephalexin for sale
buy zoloft without prescription
buy renova without prescription
renova for sale
terbinafine for sale
dalmane for sale
buy lormetazepam without prescription
nobrium for sale
buy klonopin without prescription
priligy dapoxetine for sale
buy prednisone without prescription
buy aleram without prescription
buy flomax without prescription
imovane for sale
adipex-p for sale
buy niravam without prescription
seroquel for sale
carisoprodol for sale
buy deltasone without prescription
buy diazepam without prescription
zopiclone for sale
buy imitrex without prescription
testosterone anadoil for sale
buy provigil without prescription
sonata for sale
nimetazepam for sale
buy temazepam without prescription
buy xenical without prescription
buy famvir without prescription
buy seroquel without prescription
rivotril for sale
acyclovir for sale
loprazolam for sale
buy nimetazepam without prescription
buy prozac without prescription
mogadon for sale
viagra for sale
buy valium without prescription
lamisil for sale
camazepam for sale
zithromax for sale
buy clobazam without prescription
buy diflucan without prescription
modalert for sale
diflucan for sale
buy alertec without prescription
buy zyban without prescription
buy serax without prescription
buy medazepam without prescription
buy imovane without prescription
mefenorex for sale
lormetazepam for sale
prednisone for sale
ativan for sale
buy alprazolam without prescription
buy camazepam without prescription
buy nobrium without prescription
mazindol for sale
buy mazindol without prescription
buy mogadon without prescription
buy terbinafine without prescription
diazepam for sale
buy topamax without prescription
cialis for sale
buy tafil-xanor without prescription
buy librium without prescription
buy zithromax without prescription
retin-a for sale
buy lunesta without prescription
serax for sale
restoril for sale
stilnox for sale
lamotrigine for sale

Starbucks Not So “Dumb” After All

Last weekend in Los Feliz, Los Angeles, it appeared that coffee mogul Starbucks opened a new franchise. However, this new store proudly named itself “Dumb Starbucks,” and every menu item was preceded by the word “dumb.” Patrons could order Dumb Honey Blonde roast coffee or Dumb Chai Lattes, to name a few, in size Dumb Tall, Dumb Grande, or Dumb Venti. Oddly enough, Starbucks has decided not to go after the perpetrator of this stunt, Nathan Fielder, the host of the Comedy Central show “Nathan For You.”

Los Angeles County health inspectors shut the store down for operating without a valid permit, although Fielder later protested that the store was an art gallery, and therefore the coffee they gave away free of charge was also “art.” Starbucks would have had a strong case for trademark tarnishment, but not for dilution. Although Haute Diggety Dog defeated Louis Vuitton’s suit for trademark dilution and tarnishment, Dumb Starbucks would not be able to defend itself in court against Starbucks here, at least on tarnishment. The Fourth Circuit held that Haute Diggety Dog’s line of “Chewy Vuitton” dog toys was a successful parody, because it would not cause confusion with Louis Vuitton’s well-known products, and the supposed choking hazard the toys presented for some dogs was not enough to show tarnishment.

Here, Starbucks has a clearer case of tarnishment, given that every use of its name, products, and trade dress was preceded by the word “dumb.” Dilution is probably not present, because there was only one parody shop. Also, while the shop was open people strongly suspected the real Starbucks was not responsible and instead guessed at who was behind the stunt. The claim of tarnishment would also make dilution more difficult to prove – because Starbucks does not want its name or product maligned its public relations team would clearly denounce the parody shop, and so consumers would not be confused as to the source of “Dumb Starbucks” and mistakenly attribute it to the real company.

Starbucks’ decision not to go after Fielder was intelligent, rather than dumb. The legal requirements of tarnishment may have been met, but Starbucks would have harmed its own reputation much more if it brought suit. Starbucks would have been viewed as a bully that couldn’t take a joke, because the prank was short-lived, and Fielder did not profit from giving away free coffee. Instead, Starbucks got some free advertising, similar to the way knock-offs of luxury goods advertise the real goods. The coffee served by Dumb Starbucks was of questionable quality (perhaps as part of the joke), which may also increase interest in the real thing. Consumers will also view Starbucks in a better light for allowing the issue to blow over on its own. Fielder jokingly said he considered opening another branch of Dumb Starbucks in Brooklyn, New York. If he does open another branch Starbucks will probably take action (and should to protect its trademarks and reputation). Starbucks may still hesitate given that its trademark infringement claim against Charbucks failed in 2009, and that courts vary in their incorporation of the fair use defense from copyright law to trademark law.

It is unclear whether Starbucks’ decision not to sue Fielder will lead other companies to allow one-shot “pranks” such as this to occur without repercussions. Such action will likely depend on the nature of the future pranks and whether they are harmful and widespread. Notably the consumers of Dumb Starbucks coffee were left completely alone, so hopefully any future events like this will not have serious implications for consumers, whatever effect they may have on the people responsible.

About the Author

Joanna Schlingbaum

Joanna Schlingbaum is a Staffer for the Columbia Science and Technology Law Review. She is a 2L at Columbia Law School.
blog comments powered by Disqus