It's this kind of hubris that got us kicked out of Starbucks

[Dave_pro2a]

From Starbucks:

Copyright and Limited License
Copyright and Limited License

Unless otherwise indicated, the Sites and all content and other materials therein, including, without limitation, the Starbucks logo and all designs, text, graphics, pictures, information, data, software, sound files, other files and the selection and arrangement thereof (collectively, "Site Materials") are the proprietary property of Starbucks or its licensors or users and are protected by U.S. and international copyright laws.

My point was, and still is

Your point is you have absolutely NO idea what you speak of.

That quote from the Charbusks website declares their ownership over designs THEY created and THEY own. That's 100% legit.

Fair use is excluded, or they'd sue.

In fact if the DO NOT sue, it damages their TM claim. It is in their best interest to sue, not to ignore, because by ignoring they effectively release into the public domain.

God damn this is like arguing with toddler, or a public high school graduate.

 

[OC for ME]

South Butt was a clothing and accessories company and therefore in direct competition to the North Face. Big difference. I'm not arguing right or wrong, but recognizing the difference it makes if one is a competitor.

The South Butt claimed that they were a parody of The North Face. The North Face claimed that The South Butt was a direct competitor...their view prevailed. If The South Butt had not pursued a trademark then The North Face would likely have not even bothered with The South Butt. Pretty big news here in the STL area back then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_South_Butt

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=the+south+butt

Wiki is usually not the best source, but it is the easiest on this point.

 

[mikeyb]

The Starbucks vs. Charbucks is technically a wordmark issue, where Starbucks took offense to Black Bear, a small coffee business selling a dark roast coffee called "Mr. Charbucks" or simply "Charbucks." The name is a pejorative referring to Starbuck's coffee, and in common usage.

Black Bear did not copy the Starbuck's trademark- the mermaid encircled by a green ring with the company name. It simply used a common word in the coffee world for their product. And Black Bear had very little economic impact on Starbucks, so that's another condition of "infringement" not met by the accuser.

As far as the "I <3 Guns & Coffee" goes, that's clearly parody. While the logo is very close to the original (as it should be), I think it's too close. I'll admit that when I first saw the stickers, I looked in the local Sbux for them, only to not find them. I'd call that a successful parody, however, but not infringement.

Interesting reads:
http://www.whidbeyarms.com/I-Love-Guns-Coffee_bymfg_8-1-1.html
http://www.ilovegunsandcoffeechallengecoin.com/the-logo.html

Oh, the quote from Sbux's website concerning copyrights... Yeah, that's just for web content. They're prohibiting people from copying the look and format of the Starbucks website so people can't pass it off as their own, or copy some parts of the site. It has no bearing on the trademark discussion.

 

[Seriona]

The Starbucks vs. Charbucks is technically a wordmark issue, where Starbucks took offense to Black Bear, a small coffee business selling a dark roast coffee called "Mr. Charbucks" or simply "Charbucks." The name is a pejorative referring to Starbuck's coffee, and in common usage.

Black Bear did not copy the Starbuck's trademark- the mermaid encircled by a green ring with the company name. It simply used a common word in the coffee world for their product. And Black Bear had very little economic impact on Starbucks, so that's another condition of "infringement" not met by the accuser.

As far as the "I <3 Guns & Coffee" goes, that's clearly parody. While the logo is very close to the original (as it should be), I think it's too close. I'll admit that when I first saw the stickers, I looked in the local Sbux for them, only to not find them. I'd call that a successful parody, however, but not infringement.

Interesting reads:
http://www.whidbeyarms.com/I-Love-Guns-Coffee_bymfg_8-1-1.html
http://www.ilovegunsandcoffeechallengecoin.com/the-logo.html

Oh, the quote from Sbux's website concerning copyrights... Yeah, that's just for web content. They're prohibiting people from copying the look and format of the Starbucks website so people can't pass it off as their own, or copy some parts of the site. It has no bearing on the trademark discussion.

Which parody's are protected by the 1st amendment.

 

[JoeSparky]

The mind goes, "Carrying a pistol, clearly self defense. Carrying a long firearm, clearly going to go someplace high to shoot someone." I personally do not care for long gun carriers, never saw one personally myself but by doing so, you pretty much going to be arrested even though it is legal.

And it wasn't that long ago where it was happening to the open carriers of handguns. I wonder why it changed? Oh, this must be it! A group of folks decided to engage in legal and lawful carry of holstered handguns, faced the unconstitutional and unlawful actions of certain officers and the subsequent prosecution. Then finally were exonerated!

There is another phrase I hear on occasion on some obscure firearms site---- you know it! It is the one your on right now----- A Right Unexercised is a a Right Lost!

For the most part the primary locations where long gun carry is being done is where the OC of handguns has been prohibited. Since OC of long guns is the ONLY lawful option of the exercise of these folks 2nd amendment protected rights, I support them fully in the exercise of these rights!

 

[wimwag]

.



God damn this is like arguing with toddler, or a public high school graduate.

And what private school are you currently attending?

 

[wimwag]

And it wasn't that long ago where it was happening to the open carriers of handguns. I wonder why it changed? Oh, this must be it! A group of folks decided to engage in legal and lawful carry of holstered handguns, faced the unconstitutional and unlawful actions of certain officers and the subsequent prosecution. Then finally were exonerated!

There is another phrase I hear on occasion on some obscure firearms site---- you know it! It is the one your on right now----- A Right Unexercised is a a Right Lost!

For the most part the primary locations where long gun carry is being done is where the OC of handguns has been prohibited. Since OC of long guns is the ONLY lawful option of the exercise of these folks 2nd amendment protected rights, I support them fully in the exercise of these rights!

Preach it preacha!