According to Slog, Starbucks is asking the Rat City Rollergirls – who have White Center (aka Rat City) and West Seattle roots/ties, so they’re sort-of-local news to us – to tweak their logo. RCR reaction just went live in a PI followup.
You have got to be kidding me… seriously… Really?? I don’t even know where to begin with this. Starbucks, get over yourself… please. It’s just embarrassing.
Who is the PR person for Starbucks that they thought it was okay to tick off MORE people in the city they call home? I think I’m going to apply for that job with the only thing on the cover letter saying: “Hey, I can’t do a worse job than the person you have NOW!”
Ok, from what I remember studying in Copyright law, I think Starbucks has a valid complaint. The two logos are remarkably and substantially similar in look and effect. As a designer, I would not have taken such a clear copy of another company’s design. Given the similarity, it was as if they (the RCR) may have done this for publicity. I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST THE RCR!!!
I like them…but, the logo is just too similar to be considered coincidental.
Just my two cents…
Okay, now that SBux has brought it up, I’ll think of them everytime I see the RCRG Logo! :rolleyes:
I need to get back to bed, but in the morning I’ll relate another story of a Megacorp whining infringement against another “little guy”.
Mike
RCR has had that logo for a few years…the minute they become profitable, Starbuck’s has a problem with it.
They could be supporting the possible nod the logo might infer to local culture. Lighten up big cranky corporation. The girls just want to have some fun!
Okay, here’s my story. There is a local steel drum band called named the Toucans.
.
The band started out in around 1988 as three kids, literally three teenage guys playing at Bumbershoot, and other local festivals.
.
A few years later, they decided thay wanted to trademark their name. The trademark board felt they would have no problem.
.
Come December ’93, they get a letter from the lawyers at Kellogs Corp. The lawyers felt the namae infringed upon Kellog’s Froot Loops brand. A link to the first press release, as posted on the Toucans site back in ’95, is here.
.
It took six long years, but the band finally won. I might have understood Kellog’s point of view, if the band was named the “Toucan Sam’s”, or the “Fruit Loops”, but this was so totally ridiculous.
.
Even thought the guys won, I still to this day, won’t buy Kellog’s products.
.
Mike
FYI, there are rollergirls who work at Sbux Corporate office. My personal opinion is that this is one lawyer who “thinks they’re scary” as it says in the article. That lawyer needs a reality check.
It also pretty clearly states they’re “looking at it”
and don’t necessarily have an objection. I suspect the whole thing may just go away. Not an official opinion, rather a personal one.
RCR could change those stars to l’il hearts. :)
I’m a designer and I figure the basic shape is round because there are no hard angles in a rink, the stars indicate champions, the sans serif type looks tough. It’s an excellent logo for the team it represents. On the other hand, the SB logo has absolutely nothing to do with coffee. It’s iconic through sheer dint of persistence.
L’il hearts on the RCR logo might disarm the competition. :)
I have some quarters which, on one side, display a portrait with words that suspiciously resembles a starbucks logo. When they’re done with these misfits they’ll be set to take on the real bad guys: The US Mint!
It was bad enough that they sold the Sonics to the rednecks, but now their messing with the home team.
This is war!
I think that if they had remotely similar products there *might* be an issue.
But if I walk into an RCRG bout, I am NOT expecting to be handed a vanilla latte and a muffin. I am expecting funny sassy tough women who skate fast and hit hard.
I think this is ridiculous.
GO RAT CITY!!!
Starbucks can go to heck in a handbasket, I have seen many logos with concentric circles long before Howard even thought of selling coffee. Will Starbucks claim they invented the circle??
SB is fishing here, big time. There is no way in hell the RCRG logo has ANYTHING to do with coffee. Additionally, they can’t copyright the font, circle, and star stuff- it’s public domain.
I will say I have a feeling SB knows this; they are taking a remarkably soft-touch approach in their dialog with RCRG. I hope it gets worked out, but I don’t think this will be over soon.
In my past life I was in Marketing/Advertising and we would never have been allowed to ‘copy’ an already established, recognizable logo.
It doesn’t matter that a different product is represented, or that the font and picture are different, it’s pretty obvious that the basic layout of both logos is exactly the same.
i agree with you Jo, although i dont see why starbucks cares about this, looking at both the pictures one has to imagine that that was the whole idea of the logo for the ratcity girls, to put a cute twist to the starbucks logo.
hey Roger at 1:34 am:
this has nothing to do with copyright law, so go back and hit the books. it’s trademark law – not the same thing.
Can I nominate this story for the WSB Non-Issue Of The Year Award?
I know it’s always fun to pick on big mean corporations, but seriously: What difference does it make?
CO Transplant – It matters because it is a big corporation picking on what is a grass roots, women-owned, all volunteer (none of the women are paid), home-grown organization that has it’s roots in (and many of it’s members living in) West Seattle.
That is the difference that is makes. It is totally a Goliath picking on the little guy.
All the logos are a rip-off of this:
http://www.cel-ebration.com/WDCC%20MICKEY%20MOUSE%20CLUB%20PLAQUE%20I.jpg
que, So if I form a grass roots, women-owned, all volunteer, home grown organization that has its roots in West Seattle, then copyright infringement laws wouldn’t apply to me.
Am I hearing you correctly?
Gina –
Et tu Gina?
You and Wes are doin’ all the $tarbuck$ attorney’s work for ’em.
When I see a “Starbucks” sign all I think of is were they stole it from. But then everything is derivative…blah blah blah
I love the RCRG
Here is Starbucks – old school
This link shows a table top (from the 1920’s I think)
The SB logo was from a 15th century etching.
Please remember that this mermaid/siren/melusina,
Starbucks would beckon sailors to distraction, it was her job.
So this tile may be considered by some a bit bawdy.
http://www.cranagestudios.com/starbuck-table41.jpg
Tiny’s, Mickey Mouse and the U.S. Navy… gottcha… Starbucks has definitely got their work cut out for them!
I’m still putting my resume together though…
AS IF I needed any MORE reason to Hate Starbux.. good lord. Get over it. That company is just circling the bowl.
If you had an iconic logo that other businesses were borrowing, you might enforce your trademark as well. Their attorneys (who are all great people, FYI) are just doing their jobs so please stop being so ignorant.
it’s not just that. It’s also about proving damages. sorry, but the rcrg’s logo IS different enough (albeit one can see the sbux inspiration), but I see no way that sbux is being damaged here.
sbux has a bad history with suing anything even close to a resemblance that has NO impact on their brand or business.
Perhaps sbux should hire a few PR people instead. Their stock price is a clear indicator of just what people think.
I’m sure their attorneys are great people…I have a few in my family as well. I understand they’re just doing their job.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=1390867
http://consumerist.com/consumer/starbucks/starbucks-sues-doubleshot-espresso-165158.php
oh yeah..one other sbux gripe is their stranglehold on other business near them.
perfect example. one of my fav WS Italian establishments had to stop serving espresso (rendering their expensive machine to making drinks for employees only), because the sbux in the same building has a tiny little clause in their lease stating that no other food establishment can serve espresso drinks. Sure..the coffee shop AND grocery store ACROSS the street can, but, nobody in the same building can.
I’m not talking about another coffee shop in the same building, but a SMALL family owned place.
Ain’t that great for community relations and supporting a small business???
Any savvy retail/restaurant tenant will request an exclusive use clause in their lease during negotiations. I work in real estate and have seen a lot of exclusive use language that restricts my company from selling certain products. So Starbucks is not out to get the little guy, they’re just making sure their business will be profitable by having fewer competitors. In the end, it’s the LANDLORD who agrees to this so blame them.
Okay, so the landlord says no. Is Starbuck’s going to say, “Okay, just thought we’d ask. Where do we sign the lease?”
.
No, they’ll say “See Ya!”
.
So, then the landlord is caught in kind of a Catch-22. They need an anchor tenant.
.
It’s obviously legal, but I don’t think it’s right. I don’t see how this small restaurant serving espresso can be a serious threat to Starbucks. It’s highly unlikely people would be sitting around for hours just sipping lattes. They’ll have a cup with dinner, or more likely dessert.
.
That seems like an infringement on their business rights, even though it’s in the Starbuck’s lease. I could almost understand a clause prohibiting another business whose primary function is selling espresso.
.
Business tactics such as this, are why so many people dislike big corps. Even homegrown ones.
.
This also seems counter to free enterprise.
.
Just remember folks, if you want a nice latte after your meal at this restaurant (and I think many can figure out which one it is by grr’s description) there’s a nice little place across the street
.
Mike
Alright, enough whining about big corporations taking over the little guy. I like CO transplant’s point, sarcasm noted. To anyone anti-Starbucks out there, I’m sure that none of you shop at Safeway, Target, Home Depot, etc…so quit complaining about big corporations already. Love ’em or hate ’em, they aren’t going away. I happen to like seeing Starbucks wherever I go, as it always reminds me of Seattle and my local coffee shop growing up. Plus I know what I’m going to get, which is comforting to some of us.
And even if the logo was a take on Starbucks, I don’t think it would hold. TRADEMARK law (this is not about copyright) will not likely apply if there is not likely to be confusion of the images. Circles, writing, and stars like that are very common. Sure, the two logos look similar side by side but the black circles and stars with the girl give off more of a Converse image than Starbucks to me.
Copyright law doesn’t have the definitive answer here; intended usage, length of usage, and intended custom does. A local outfit like RCRG shouldn’t come up on SB’s radar. This is a good indication of a legal team, tasked with unrelenting search for possible copyright infringement, that has crossed the line. No harm – no foul. Bye bye, Starbucks…
It’s funny to read some of these ignorant comments- clearly some people that live in this neck of the woods have never worked in the legal field. Or know anything about business. And are emotional. Thanks for the chuckle!
CO Transplant – You didn’t say anything in your previous comment about copyright infringement. I was responding to your statement of “I know it’s always fun to pick on big mean corporations, but seriously: What difference does it make?”
In short, it matters because the RCRG are beloved here. THAT is what I was responding to.
Wow I am still not over the Sonics sale to a city foaming at the mouth for an NBA team and now to see this. Howies outdone himself with this one. I had allready boycotted sbux, now I guess I will not be going there at all even in a caffine emergency!!!
As co-founder of the Rat City Rollergirls, I thought I’d chime in, for the heck of it. ;P
Holy cow, it only took 4 years for Starbux to see our logo?? Wow! We filed the first trademark paperwork back in 2006, even!
Our logo was designed for us by a local artist and NO, we did not intentially try to copy SB’s logo. Why would we? Not that there’s anything wrong with it. I do see the similarities, of course. We have nothing against SB’s and yes, some of the rollergirls are current or former SB employees.
As for the SB lawyer calling us scary… really?? Scary?! Lil ol me, scary?? And to say such things about SB’s own employees! Tsk! Tsk! Shame on you! ;P
Rahel –
Since you’ve piped in, I’m curious…and you might want to think twice about answering these questions here without consulting your legal counsel, btw.
I know WSB readers often appreciate this kind of information, but you and RCRG must consider the exchange of this information within a different frame of reference. Having said that –
Are the RCRG’s a nonprofit or incorporated?
Do you sell coffee at your bouts? Do you use the RCRG logo on any consumable products?
Are there other Roller Derby teams/associations whose logo’s are or have been “being looked at” by Starbuck’s trademark infringement team?
Just curious. As I said, if it were me, I would check with legal counsel first before replying.
Go Rat City!
D – I am not affiliated with the RCRG, but am a fan and will answer some of your questions. They are an LLC, not a non-profit (the skaters don’t get paid, they all actually pay dues). The team is a member of the WFTDA (Women’s Flat Track Derby Assoc.)
They don’t sell coffee at their bouts. They do sell beer and soda (neither of which have their logo on them). They do not sell any products that are edible with their logo on them. They have vast amounts of merchandise (t-shirts, posters, trading cards, a wide variety of swag) that bears the logo.
Thanks que! :)
Actually most of the answers to your questions, d, are public knowledge, so there’s no legal issues. However, I will say that I have absolutely NO clue if any other Roller Derby leagues logos are being looked at by Starbucks. But then again, I can’t think of any league logos that look similar to ours – they’re pretty unique – ok, except most of them have a roller skate somewhere ;P Heck, I’m not even sure that any leagues are working on trademarking their logos.
Sorry, comment time is over.
| 45 COMMENTS