“Starbucks” vs. “Starbuds” Case and the Concern for Intellectual Property Assets

October 3, 2024

On June 28, 2024, Starbucks Corporation, a company focused on the food sector, particularly coffee-based products, filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York against Brandpat, LLC. Brandpat operates in the market as Starbuds Flowers and focuses on cannabis products. This legal action followed unsuccessful attempts at an out-of-court settlement. The central issue of the case involves the infringement of Starbucks Corporation’s trademark and copyright1, 2, 3 e 4, as well as its distinctive signs. among which the following stand out, which are protected in the United States by copyright and trademarks:

5

Therefore, the company would be infringing on its rights by using the STARBUDS brand and the following logo in its cannabis product marketing activities:

6

In this context, Starbucks argued, among other points, that the similarity between the signs is evident, both in terms of the nominative and figurative elements:

(...) Both marks include an image of a mermaid (twin-tailed mermaid) within a circle surrounded by a double-ringed green circle. The Starbuds logo shows “STARBUDS” in the upper portion of the green circle and “FLOWERS” in the lower portion of the green circle.

The Starbuds logo lacks the stars shown in the Starbucks logo; however, the Starbuds logo uses a marijuana leaf on either side of the mermaid image in the green circle. Further, the Starbuds mermaid appears to be smoking; a blunt is shown in her right hand, and smoke emanates from her mouth with a cloud of smoke above her head7.

As a defense, it was argued that the market sectors are different: food industry versus cannabis products. However, the coffee shop chain also faced the risk of brand dilution and damage to its reputation, given Starbuds Flowers' attempt to associate its brand with Starbucks8 e 9. Therefore, if these allegations are deemed valid, the fact that the companies operate in different markets will not eliminate the violation of Starbucks' rights.

Another point in this case is the issue of parody10 e 11. As highlighted in the article “Caso “Dungeons and Dragons” x “Dungeons and Drag Queens” e a Paródia em Matéria Marcária” (The Case 'Dungeons and Dragons' v. 'Dungeons and Drag Queens' and Parody in Trademark Matters”), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC that a parody mark is subject to the analysis of the possibility of confusion12 e 13 and:

The Lanham Act's exclusion from dilution liability for '[any] noncommercial use of a mark,' §1125(c)(3)(C), does not protect parody, criticism, or commentary when an alleged diluter uses a mark as a source designation for its own products.14.

Thus, considering that, according to the information contained in the records, Starbuds Flowers uses the STARBUDS brand to identify its products, claiming the possibility of using this sign based on parody appears to be a questionable argument.

Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, this case serves as an example to holders of Intellectual Property rights. By taking care of its assets, the holder demonstrates to competitors, the market, and the general public that it is vigilant and will not allow potential violations of its rights to occur without taking the appropriate defense measures. This strengthens the holder’s position in the market and protects against the weakening of its assets.

Therefore, it is recommended that holders of Intellectual Property rights avoid being tolerant of third-party actions that potentially violate their rights. Even if, at first, the possible violation seems insignificant, it may later prove to be harmful and serve as a precedent for others to take advantage of the holder's inaction as a supposed justification for infringing rights.

1 Available at: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2024cv04927/624043. Accessed on: September 19, 2024.

2 Available at: https://www.lawinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Starbucks-Trademark-Lawsuit.pdf. Accessed on: September 19, 2024.

3 Haynes, Jerry D. Starbucks v. Starbuds: trademark battle?, 08 ago. 2024. Available at: https://trademarklawyermagazine.com/starbucks-v-starbuds-trademark-battle/. Accessed on: September 19, 2024.

4 Snelling, Grace. Starbucks just sued this weed business for copying its logo - The coffee giant is retaliating against Starbuds Flowers for using a very familiar siren logo., 02 jul. 2024. Available at: https://www.fastcompany.com/91150719/starbucks-just-sued-this-weed-business-for-copying-its-logo. Accessed on: September 19, 2024.

5 Images obtained from https://www.lawinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Starbucks-Trademark-Lawsuit.pdf. Accessed on: September 19, 2024.

6 Image obtained from https://www.lawinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Starbucks-Trademark-Lawsuit.pdf. Accessed on: September 19, 2024.

7 Haynes, op. cit.

8 Ibid.

9 Available at: https://www.lawinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Starbucks-Trademark-Lawsuit.pdf. Accessed on: September 19, 2024.

10 Haynes, op. cit.

11 Snelling, op. cit.

12 Caetano, Carolina, e Duric, Raphael. Caso “Dungeons and Dragons” x “Dungeons and Drag Queens” e a Paródia em Matéria Marcária, September 09 2024. Available at: https://www.lickslegal.com/post/caso-dungeons-and-dragons-x-dungeons-and-drag-queens-e-a-parodia-em-materia-marcaria. Accessed on: September 19, 2024.

13 Christeson, Laura E., e Palmisciano, Michael S. In Jack Daniel’s v. Bad Spaniels Trademark Case, Supreme Court Holds Parody Products on a Short Leash, June 12, 2023. Available at: https://www.sullivanlaw.com/viewpoints/in-jack-daniels-v-bad-spaniels-trademark-case-supreme-court-holds-parody-products-on-a-short-leash. Accessed on: September 19, 2024.

14 Available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-148_3e04.pdf. Accessed on: September 19, 2024.

RECENT POSTS

LINKEDIN FEED

Newsletter

Register your email and receive our updates

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Newsletter

Register your email and receive our updates-

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Licks Attorneys' Government Affairs & International Relations Blog

Doing Business in Brazil: Political and economic landscape

Licks Attorneys' COMPLIANCE Blog

“Starbucks” vs. “Starbuds” Case and the Concern for Intellectual Property Assets

No items found.

On June 28, 2024, Starbucks Corporation, a company focused on the food sector, particularly coffee-based products, filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York against Brandpat, LLC. Brandpat operates in the market as Starbuds Flowers and focuses on cannabis products. This legal action followed unsuccessful attempts at an out-of-court settlement. The central issue of the case involves the infringement of Starbucks Corporation’s trademark and copyright1, 2, 3 e 4, as well as its distinctive signs. among which the following stand out, which are protected in the United States by copyright and trademarks:

5

Therefore, the company would be infringing on its rights by using the STARBUDS brand and the following logo in its cannabis product marketing activities:

6

In this context, Starbucks argued, among other points, that the similarity between the signs is evident, both in terms of the nominative and figurative elements:

(...) Both marks include an image of a mermaid (twin-tailed mermaid) within a circle surrounded by a double-ringed green circle. The Starbuds logo shows “STARBUDS” in the upper portion of the green circle and “FLOWERS” in the lower portion of the green circle.

The Starbuds logo lacks the stars shown in the Starbucks logo; however, the Starbuds logo uses a marijuana leaf on either side of the mermaid image in the green circle. Further, the Starbuds mermaid appears to be smoking; a blunt is shown in her right hand, and smoke emanates from her mouth with a cloud of smoke above her head7.

As a defense, it was argued that the market sectors are different: food industry versus cannabis products. However, the coffee shop chain also faced the risk of brand dilution and damage to its reputation, given Starbuds Flowers' attempt to associate its brand with Starbucks8 e 9. Therefore, if these allegations are deemed valid, the fact that the companies operate in different markets will not eliminate the violation of Starbucks' rights.

Another point in this case is the issue of parody10 e 11. As highlighted in the article “Caso “Dungeons and Dragons” x “Dungeons and Drag Queens” e a Paródia em Matéria Marcária” (The Case 'Dungeons and Dragons' v. 'Dungeons and Drag Queens' and Parody in Trademark Matters”), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC that a parody mark is subject to the analysis of the possibility of confusion12 e 13 and:

The Lanham Act's exclusion from dilution liability for '[any] noncommercial use of a mark,' §1125(c)(3)(C), does not protect parody, criticism, or commentary when an alleged diluter uses a mark as a source designation for its own products.14.

Thus, considering that, according to the information contained in the records, Starbuds Flowers uses the STARBUDS brand to identify its products, claiming the possibility of using this sign based on parody appears to be a questionable argument.

Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, this case serves as an example to holders of Intellectual Property rights. By taking care of its assets, the holder demonstrates to competitors, the market, and the general public that it is vigilant and will not allow potential violations of its rights to occur without taking the appropriate defense measures. This strengthens the holder’s position in the market and protects against the weakening of its assets.

Therefore, it is recommended that holders of Intellectual Property rights avoid being tolerant of third-party actions that potentially violate their rights. Even if, at first, the possible violation seems insignificant, it may later prove to be harmful and serve as a precedent for others to take advantage of the holder's inaction as a supposed justification for infringing rights.

1 Available at: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2024cv04927/624043. Accessed on: September 19, 2024.

2 Available at: https://www.lawinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Starbucks-Trademark-Lawsuit.pdf. Accessed on: September 19, 2024.

3 Haynes, Jerry D. Starbucks v. Starbuds: trademark battle?, 08 ago. 2024. Available at: https://trademarklawyermagazine.com/starbucks-v-starbuds-trademark-battle/. Accessed on: September 19, 2024.

4 Snelling, Grace. Starbucks just sued this weed business for copying its logo - The coffee giant is retaliating against Starbuds Flowers for using a very familiar siren logo., 02 jul. 2024. Available at: https://www.fastcompany.com/91150719/starbucks-just-sued-this-weed-business-for-copying-its-logo. Accessed on: September 19, 2024.

5 Images obtained from https://www.lawinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Starbucks-Trademark-Lawsuit.pdf. Accessed on: September 19, 2024.

6 Image obtained from https://www.lawinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Starbucks-Trademark-Lawsuit.pdf. Accessed on: September 19, 2024.

7 Haynes, op. cit.

8 Ibid.

9 Available at: https://www.lawinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Starbucks-Trademark-Lawsuit.pdf. Accessed on: September 19, 2024.

10 Haynes, op. cit.

11 Snelling, op. cit.

12 Caetano, Carolina, e Duric, Raphael. Caso “Dungeons and Dragons” x “Dungeons and Drag Queens” e a Paródia em Matéria Marcária, September 09 2024. Available at: https://www.lickslegal.com/post/caso-dungeons-and-dragons-x-dungeons-and-drag-queens-e-a-parodia-em-materia-marcaria. Accessed on: September 19, 2024.

13 Christeson, Laura E., e Palmisciano, Michael S. In Jack Daniel’s v. Bad Spaniels Trademark Case, Supreme Court Holds Parody Products on a Short Leash, June 12, 2023. Available at: https://www.sullivanlaw.com/viewpoints/in-jack-daniels-v-bad-spaniels-trademark-case-supreme-court-holds-parody-products-on-a-short-leash. Accessed on: September 19, 2024.

14 Available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-148_3e04.pdf. Accessed on: September 19, 2024.