Missouri Bar Responds To Cease And Desist From Starbucks With Epic Letter And $6 Check

View Comments (13)

• I was giggling while reading! My husband thought I'd gone mad until I explained it to him...

• As an ex-lawyer from CA, I rolled when I saw this. And yes, if the reply came into my office, it certainly would be framed and up on the wall. (I also understand why Starbucks did this--Psycho Dad's analysis is spot on).

  • Why, thank you, Brother Counselor!

    • You two are absolutely right about the suitable for framing thing, but if they cash the check and it comes back...

• (Oh God, here he goes again, you just thought)

  Yes, very wry and funny letter and brilliant sending a $6 check. THAT will probably be hanging on the wall, too!

  While it is of course absurd to think that someone might be getting a cup of coffee out of the brass tap in a bar (which was his point), it is NOT too far-fetched to think that what with all the craft and microbrews about, there would be a market for a sweetish, coffee flavored beer, possibly like a stout. (Come to think of it, I think I'd be pretty interested in that!) And thus, that someone might reasonably mistake a draft of "Frappicino" as an actual Starbucks product.

  I'm not an expert in trademark law, but generally a court will find that there is no case if two products or businesses are so dissimilar that a "reasonable person"* would not think there was any connection between them, despite similarity of name or trademark. So if I started up "Papa John's Auto & Motorcycle Repair", I wouldn't have anything to fear from the guy with the pizza. In this case, we're talking about beverages which are retailed in a service establishment, that is, you order your drink and someone serves it to you, for you to consume on the premises. (Hey I just loooked back at the letter, it IS a stout! Damn, I'm good.) It's hard to guess how a court might rule here, but I think SB does have a legitimate issue. What is most important isn't this one little guy, though, it's all the other little guys who might do something similar -- then one big guy who comes along who really can do damage to SB, and THEN when they try to take their case in, the court might decide, Well, Mr. SB, there are all these other little guys here that you never bothered with, we find that you have waived any right to the trademark and have no recourse. So THAT is why even the biggest companies have to go after the smallest issues.

  *The "reasonable man" is a hypothetical ideal. I suspect he works in the scientific supply industry, selling ideal gasses, perfect spheres, and infinite planes.

  • someone might reasonably mistake a draft of “Frappicino” as an actual Starbucks product.

    One would think that such a mistake would be overturned by the fact that the drink was served in a frosted mug instead of a paper cup with a plastic cover, and didn't burn your lips, tongue, throat, and roof of your mouth, or give you the runs.

    Not too much room for error there.

    • No, that Starbucks might have actually licensed out their name for such a product, is what I meant.

  • Well said. It was a funny letter, but those lawyers really do have to write letters like that - if only to prove somewhere down the road that they CONSISTENTLY defended their rights.

• Should have sent burntcoffeebucks a sealed bucket full of dog poop and called it an extra Grande Crapappucino.

• Wow Starbucks has become even bigger of a douchey business than I thought. Good for the bar.

  • They started in Seattle, duh! :P

• Ohmygod I loved that story. And I'll bet the law firm got a chuckle, too. That lawyer named probably has the doggone reply letter framed and mounted on her office wall.

  I wish I lived in Missouri so I could pop in to that bar with some friends and show my appreciation.

  • I wonder what that Starbuck-McDonald's-Coca Cola-Marlboro Honey Lager tastes like.

    Unfortunately, the world will never know.