Intellectual Property Law

A New Hampshire coffee roaster has prevailed in a trademark infringement case brought by Starbucks, where Starbucks alleged that the Black Bear Micro Roastery?s ?Charbucks? dark coffee constituted trademark infringement, unfair competition and dilution of the Starbucks trademark.  Last month a district judge in New York concluded that Starbucks was not harmed by the family-owned business?s sale of its dark roasted coffee blend ?Charbucks.?  Black Bear sold Charbucks by mail order and in the owner?s coffee shop, with packaging that the court found to be ?different in imagery, color and format from Starbucks logo and signage.?  Despite the fact that Black Bear chose the Charbucks name because of its similarity to the Starbucks name, the court found no evidence to infer that the name selection was made to mislead consumers into believing there was a connection between the two brands, and there was no evidence that Black Bear used Charbucks as a stand-alone word in promoting or selling its product.  Finally, the court held that Starbucks failed to prove its image was tarnished by Charbucks.

The case is Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc., No. 01-CV-5081 (LTS). 

What do you think of this outcome?  There is an obvious tension between the court?s observation that Black Bear chose the name because of its similarity to the Starbucks name, and its ultimate conclusion that the the Charbucks name was not misleading consumers or damaging the Starbucks name.   Are these two conclusions reconcilable?

Today's Blogger:  Nan Joesten