Coffee, coffee, nice cup of coffee…
Coffee seller Damrong Maslae (43) is determined. He does not bow to the demand of the American coffee giant Starbucks to remove its Starbung logo. Despite the 300.000 baht plus interest that Starbucks is demanding and a monthly fee of 30.000 baht plus legal fees. Starbucks has been hunting him since last year. Damrong will appear in court on November 4.
Damrong says a friend designed the logo for him. It is inspired by Islam with an old Muslim man in the middle. The text reads Starbung Coffee and he sells it for 25 to 40 baht. At Starbucks logo no old man but a woman in the middle and the coffee is three times as expensive.
The battle between Damrong and Starbucks has already provoked thousands of reactions on social media. Some believe that a large company like Starbucks with a turnover of 412 billion baht should not take a simple street vendor to court. No one will confuse Starbung with Starbucks, they reason.
Others point out that this is a clear case of intellectual property infringement. A response: The company warned the seller, but he ignored the warning. That is why he is now facing a lawsuit. Who thinks that the logo is not a copy?
Damrong is stubborn. "No matter what, I'm not removing my logo or changing the name." The publicity does him no harm, because he now sells 150 cups of coffee a day instead of previously 50 to 100. He cannot afford a lawyer, so he has to enlist the help of the Lawyers Council of Thailand.
“I am not running away and I am not in a position to pay a fine. But if I have to, I can go to jail," says Damrong. A maximum of 2 years is on it or a fine of 200.000 baht.
Starbucks says it has no choice but to take legal action, after it has tried several times to settle the matter amicably. The Intellectual Property Court has already ruled that the Starbung logo is an infringement of Starbucks' trademark, but Damrong ignored it. We'll know more next month.
(Source: Bangkok Post, October 23, 2013; BK Magazine Online, November 1, 2012)
I find it difficult to form an opinion on this. On the one hand, I totally understand Starbucks defending its carefully constructed marketing and communication strategy tooth and nail.
But if you look at the photo above, no one can be wrong. Obviously it's not Starbucks, just the logo has similarities. Nothing is visible of the rest of the strategy. Incidentally, not a smart comment from Maslea that he sells more coffee because of all the commotion. That's grist to the mill of Starbucks lawyers. I wish him success in his struggle.
Coffee seller Damrong Maslae , is going to lose this business I'm afraid, and he has to admit that his logo is clearly stolen from Starbucks.
Against that, I sometimes thought that Starbucks partially stole its logo from Heineken.
And even if you are standing in the street with a cart, the coffee seller is simply guilty of infringement of property rights, even the color of the emblem is the same as Starbucks.
As childish as it may seem, agreements have been made in the world against trademark infringement.
And that also applies to Thailand where it is the most normal thing in the world to make fake items.
If this man is smart then he won't let it come to a lawsuit and he changes his logo it has done him no harm.
He is standing with his coffee cart on Phra Athit near Khao San Road, where he is now well known because of this case, so there is no shortage of customers.
Go Starbung Go!!!! Let those Yanks smell a poopie…. Starbucks is not for drinking and way too expensive!!!! Good luck!!!
There is little to say about the taste, tastes differ. The price I think is overly expensive, also stomach is made with normal water. I think it's petty how a world company wants to neck a little man. The man should have just used a different name and logo and been less stubborn.
Anyone with any understanding of trademark law knows this man is wrong. Starbucks is right. There is no doubt about that. The man only has to remove the logo and can continue to serve his apparently tasty coffee.
Apparently a very stubborn man from the category 'a bit stupid'.
dear Jacques. I doubt if Starbucks is right. After all, it must be proven conclusively that consumers are confused and could confuse the product that this Thai sells with the product of Starbucks. The logo is not the same (only shape and color), the name is not the same, the price of the product is different, the sales method is different. In my life as a market researcher, I once had to do research in court in a similar case. My estimate is that no more than 1% of coffee drinkers in a study confuse the two products, so there is no harm to Starbucks. I give the man a good chance of winning the case against Starbucks. I don't drink coffee either way.
Dear Chris, it's not about the coffee. It's about a logo. Shape, color, font are the same as the Starbucks logo. Anyone who looks at it from a distance knows no better than that it is Starbucks. And that will be his intention. Only when you get closer can you see the difference.
Many such procedures have already been conducted by Coca Cola, Shell, Mac Donald's, etc. Copying a logo, it's nothing else.
Mr. Damrong will only be strong if he can prove that his logo is older than Starbucks' logo. Then he has a bargaining position. But because he has probably not registered his trademark and Starbucks has undoubtedly done so worldwide, he also loses out in this situation. However, if his logo predates Starbucks, he can claim damages.
We can take a bet Chris. If Starbucks' demand to remove the logo is upheld, we'll go out for a coffee at your expense. If Damrong can continue to use the logo, I will pay for the coffee.
In Amsterdam, a cafe with the name 'Arena' has received compensation from the cafe in the stadium Arena. Logo completely different but only the name the same; and the pub in town the oldest. Stadium Arena has chosen eggs for its money and has paid compensation without judicial intervention. I am not a judge, not even a lawyer, but the claim that the man deliberately wants to attract Starbucks customers with his mobile coffee shop is very implausible. It's just a joke; successful or not, you can differ on that. And it's not about whether people from afar interchange the logo with that of Starbucks. When it comes to logo confusion at a distance, I can cite hundreds of examples in Bangkok that should lead to a lawsuit. No, just a storm in a cup of coffee. Let's wait and see who has to pay it….We will go to Starbung….
Starbucks knows how to sell a cup of coffee at a high price using fantasy names. That's nice. Mr. Damrung does the same; He sells more coffee because he slightly changed the logo and name of Starbucks for his own profit.
The sympathy factor wins out with the general public, but the real winner is Damrung himself for now, because the extra proceeds of course disappear in his pocket. He's allowed it, but he's wrong. He does try to get extra sales by using a derived Starbucks logo AND name. From a legal point of view, it is therefore right for Starbucks to act, all the more so as to avoid setting a precedent. Whether it actually suffers damage from Damrung I doubt, but that will not be the approach of the lawsuit.
Starbucks shouldn't make a fool of itself because of the look a like logo... They themselves channel billions of taxpayers' money past the tax authorities in the relevant countries where they are represented.
Bunch of Starbucks robbers.