Normally I'm not a particularly big fan of trademarks (eg, Facebook was a term Zuck took that was already established to describe college year books, he shouldn't have been allowed to get that. It's also somewhat descriptive, which is another no-no on trademarks). Frappuccino is a pretty unique (and meaningless) word that Starbucks spent considerable monetary resources to acquire from George Howell [1] and further used its marketing budget to ensure it had meaning in the consumer mind.<p>I think if they don't want the word associated with Alcoholic beverages I am pretty sure they are right to ask this guy to cease and desist. Also, if they don't, and for whatever reason this guys beer becomes popular and loss of distinctiveness occurs, they may lose their trademark via abandonment.<p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Howell_(entrepreneur)#Starbucks_buyout" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Howell_(entrepreneur)#St...</a>
There is nothing "brilliant" about this. People just like seeing smarminess, particularly if it's directed at a "big evil corporation". Frankly I thought the guy's response was douchey.
This is the second C&D story on the HN front page in so many days. In both instances the recipient of the letter conceded.<p>If this ever happens to you, at least avail yourself to a free consultation with an attorney. In this instance the Brewer would <i>likely</i> have prevailed.<p>As a lawyer, the first thing I did was go to the USPTO trademark database and search for each of the registered marks listed in the C&D. The key here is none of Starbucks <i>Frapucinno</i> registered marks are registered for beer specifically rather non-carbonated soft-drinks. What does this mean? This means the burden shifts from a presumption of Trademark violation by the Brewer back to Starbucks to prove they 1. have a valid Trademark for Frapucinno vis-a-vis beer, and 2. Once a Trademark is established for beer, Starbucks must establish there is likelihood of confusion in the market place (e.g. people are buying the misspelled Frapicino under the belief they are buying an actual Starbucks product).<p>The funny part is the misspelling, intentional or not, creates a difficult burden on Starbucks to prove the reasonable consumer would believe a legit Starbucks product is spelled wrong - think Fony/Coby/Sony electronics.<p>I myself once received a C&D for Trademark infringement for V-Blood, a vampire themed energy drink I manufactured and distributed. The registered Trademark owner of <i>Blood</i> asked I stop using the mark <i>blood</i> in commerce with my vampire themed energy drink, perhaps I will post that C&D and my response on HN one day. Needless to say I did not stop my use of <i>blood</i> nor was a lawsuit ever filed.
There seems to be quite a bit of negativity in the thread about the Brewery's action. Some adorable holding up of the idea that it's unfair or unethical to violate Starbuck's trademark and then flip the reaction to one's advantage.<p>I think that's complete bullshit. I also think the fact that people have been conditioned to think that way is a big part of the reason why there's such an enormous and growing wealth and power divide in the world today.<p>There aren't ethics in a vacuum, and (despite some pretty interesting legal decisions here in the US lately) Starbucks isn't a person. It isn't even a bunch of people. It's an emergent super-organism that coldly evaluates actions and their consequences against a consumer market.<p>I promise you that if the consequence-computer told them they could name a coffee after some small brewery and turn a profit from the reaction (regardless of the law), they would do it. Of course they would!<p>There are no ethics in a vacuum. Applying an ethical framework when dealing with an organization this large is silly and puts you at a disadvantage. There are laws and consequences. In this case, the C&D is a very affordable consequence and the small business owner leveraged the entire situation to his advantage. Good for him.
"We also promise to stop production of our 'Starbuck-McDonalds-Coca Cola-Marlboro Honey Lager' for fear of further repercussions."<p>Nice.
The argument for both sides are valid. My use of 'brilliant' to describe this story and the emotions attached cone from a personal experience with a C&D letter; my sister's fledgling in-house one-employee business was served a C&D letter for a naming dispute that had very little legal basis. However, my sister did not have the legal experience or money to fight this battle. Fortunately her business is thriving now, but it caused her countless sleepless nights and anxiety, so when I saw this article my first reaction was to send it to her.
Note that the brewer didn't officially name his beer Frappucino - someone just checked it in on Untapped named as such (it was their vanilla creme ale with a splash of Founder's Breakfast Stout added)