1/2/2006

Starbucks King-Konged Chinese competitor

— nSigma @ 5:43 pm


Bucks vs. ?????

Shanghai Xingbake (星巴克) has lost its case to the global coffee giant Starbucks, as I had predicted about two years ago, and was ordered by the Shanghai No 2 Intermediate People’s Court to change its name and logo, as well as pay a fine of RMB 500,000 (about US$ 62,500).

( Read All ...)

Comments (1)

4/2/2004

Starbucks v. Xingbake (Shanghai 2nd Intermediate People’s Court) -A Case Study, Part III

— nSigma @ 9:44 pm


Bake vs. Bucks

II. Trade Dress Dispute –the Logos (Lanham Act §43(a), 15 U.S.C. §1125(a))

Holding: The issue in this case is whether the round green base of the Starbucks logo is inherently distinctive and nonfunctional to be entitled protection under Lanham Act §43(a). If inherent distinctiveness is not present, then proof of secondary meaning is required.

( Read All ...)

Comments (0)

3/18/2004

Starbucks v. Xingbake (Shanghai 2nd Intermediate People’s Court) -A Case Study, Part II

— nSigma @ 9:28 pm


Bake vs. Bucks

Summary: The case in question is not a trademark infringement case since neither companies has registered "xingbake (星巴克)" as a Chinese trademark and neither sides is selling products under this Chinese name, but rather it is a case of two disputes: 1) trade name/service mark dispute (over the name), and 2) trade dress dispute (over the logo). This report addresses these two issues respectively in the following text.

( Read All ...)

Comments (0)
« Previous Page