I used to do a LOT of long distance driving, and when it came time to look for coffee in Nowhere, Somestate, I'd look for the green circles as I pased malls. Not that Starbucks is Mecca, but really, they did bring lattes to middle America. Before the late 80's/early 90's, unless you were in a college town, the choice for coffee was diners.

Nowdays, of course, there's a good chance that there will be an alternative right down the street from the starbucks, so it's still a usefull homing device ;)

@darkened:

This.

Plus it's a tool of corporate slavery.

Enjoy your latte!

How is an elephant, the words CONGA, COFFEE, and TEA anywhere near a black and white doped up mermaid and the words STARBUCKS? Way to go Starbucks for assuming people can't read or think for themselves. Clearly they assume everyone is stupid.

There weren't even any Fourbucks franchises in the Mt. Clemens area until just last year, and the closest one is over 4 miles away from Conga Coffee.

I say to hell with Starbucks, side with the independant guy.

Starsucks.

Starbucks should sue themselves now for acting like a bully and damaging their own image.

@lincolnparadox:

Start taking Starbuck's coupons and cutting up their coffee cards for a discount."

Ha! I can see it now... a paper shreder and a big sign near the cash register:

"Put your Starbuck's loyalty card through the shredder and get a free coffee!"

That's ruthlessly brilliant!

If the consumer is color blind and cannot read and has thinks a wierd looking woman and elephant are similar then I can see how it can be trademark infringement.

Keep giving Starbuck's that black eye every day of the week. Start taking Starbuck's coupons and cutting up their coffee cards for a discount. You won't change the world, but they will steal customers away.

That said, I don't think round and green is enough. The shades of green are different. The font is different. The font is a different color. The picture is very different. Contrast that with a sign for a coffee company that looks like this:
[www.specialtyjava.com]'s%20Coffee%20Logo.JPG

Now that company should get sued. Same font. Same color. Same stars placed bisecting the circle horizontally.

People choose round signs because its a basic shape. People choose green because it is a nice color (and it is often associated with being somehow environmentally friendly which I think is especially relevant to the coffee trade). People don't randomly choose that in combination with two stars, that font, and the single word coffee across the bottom.

@calvinneal: Actually questions of law are generally decided by the judge. Questions of fact are left to the jury. As we have a legitimate question of law and not enough facts one cannot decide who is right and wrong. Nice though to throw out the irrelevant tangent about billable hours. Also, I could not find the Free Press article too which you referred. Last, where do you get that 3 million people read the Free Press. I know my number is out of date but in 1996, Sunday was 750K. In the age of the internet, even with increasing popluation (though I am pretty sure Michigan has lost people in the last 10 years) I doubt that it has increase 4 fold.

In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961).

1. Starbucks mark is exremely strong.
2. Same goods.
3. Similarity. Same general design, green circle with white writing with an inset image. This is not copyright law, it does not have to be an exact duplicate.
4. Evidence of actual confusion? I don't know enough about the situation.
5. Similar marketing channels? Simply the sign in front of the store? Again, factually dependent and we do not have all the facts.
6. I would say that when one needs a caffine fix, the degree of caution is diminished. If I was driving by and caught the green circle, I would assume it was a Starbucks and stop. Then, even if it was not Starbucks, my need for caffine would most likely rule and I would buy. So, based on the average caffine junky, it would seem the degree of caution is low.
7. Intent. We do not have the facts to discerne the intent of the Michigan store.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion. Feel free to look at these seven factors however you will but please do not make assumptions as to intent, and factually based issues of which you cannot know. Thanks.

Apparently they aren't just in the coffee business.
[www.google.com]

How widespread was Starbucks eleven years ago? I don't think I saw my first until 98 or 99.

I wonder if that plays into things.... if his logo predates Starbucks expansion into that region, would it be different than if they opened after Starbucks had reached that area?

It is very close, Both Signs are green and Both say Coffee.

Starbucks Green Sign came in 1992. This one 1996, If it has been the same for 11 years. So SB was first.

But to mistake the elephant for a mermaid, you gotta be blind.

Starbucks is right. These are very similar with a quick look. You don't believe this guy had the intention of trying to use a similar logo? People try to get away with it all the time.

I say Starbucks prevails in this lawsuit. Remember this post when the case is settled so I can say "I told you so".

It's true. Red and Green are commonly confused by people who are colorblind.

You're driving along. You're looking for coffee. You see the green circle, and think, "Mmm, coffee!" You take a second look and realize that it isn't Fourbucks, and you're a little disappointed, but then you realize that it is a coffee place, and hey, maybe they're not so bad, and you still want it, so you pull over instead of keeping up your search for the Green Circle That Brings Consciousness.

None of which really justifies Starbucks' lawsuit, IMO and IANAL and all that, any more than the first diner to have Art Deco style lettering can sue all the others.

Again, the marks don't have to be identical, only prone to cause confusion. The law doesn't state prone to confusion after careful study, though. Despite the fact that I know this coffee shop is there, I always think of Starbucks every, single time I glimpse the sign. I'm a bright guy and not easily confused, but yet it happens. Kind of reinforces the famous mark, too.

There's one possible way out, though. Was this mark used in this area prior to Starbucks mark being a famous mark, and prior to any Starbucks' being in the area?

Starbucks, get a life. Continue running your bigass coffee shops and leave the small fries alone.

Obviously the two are strikingly similar. I wouldn't look at it and think it's a starbucks, but I certainly might think that it's related to starbucks, and if I had a bad experience I may then associate it unfairly with starbucks brand.

Not unreasonable at all.

@Jozef: How on earth would you confuse that with Starbucks? Much less actually walk in and order thinking it was starbucks. O_O

As for Conga, if that truely has been their logo for 11 years then they do hold precedent in that area. But if they plan on expansing to other markets they may be required to change the logo.

As for the legal outcome. It will most likely go to arbitration, and since Conga doesn't have the size of legal or money that starbucks has, Conga may unfortunately have to change their logo rather than fight in court for years. As that fight would most likely cause him to go out of business and starbucks will jump into those stores.

On a side, there is a dry cleaners near me, that has a green circle and image in the middle for their logo, and I have thought it was a starbucks a few times myself. However once close enough it is apparent that it is not a coffee house at all.

I had an "old fashion" style doughnut last Thursday from 'Bucks = $1.75 for 1, 2 oz. hunk of flour and sugar. Done deal, no more Starbucks for me.

Do they burn the coffee beans and over charge?

Huh? No? Case closed.

For what it's worth, check out how nuanced the product/service descriptions get on their records here:

[tess2.uspto.gov]

@lincolnparadox: The sign has been around for 11 years. They don't need to change it. How long has starbucks used that same logo? How long have they been in Michigan? In Detroit? Those all relate to the suit and how likely it is to pass. Two companies can have similar logos, and the first one to market in a area is the one most likely to win.

@medic78: Awww, hell. Should've gotten Prepaid Legal afterall.

I think one time I saw Starbuck from Battlestar Galatica drink coffee. Battlestar Galatica came from Star Wars. Hence I beleive George Lucas should sue all three companies (BG, Starbucks, and Congo) for infrigment. Go George!

That should be enough time to hold a "please keep us from getting sued by the Evil Coffee Empire" benefit for two new signs.

Still, Starbucks is verging on RIAA cockbaggery with this kind of move.

I disagree with Starbucks but I don't think they are completely without a point. Based on my super scientific analysis, I've determined that the Conga sign resembles a Starbucks sign in my peripheral vision. So, if I'm driving down the street thinking about going to Starbucks and I see the Conga sign out of the corner of my eye, I might slow my car. Upon realizing it's Conga, not Starbucks, I might decide to stop anyways (perhaps missing the Starbucks on the next block). Just sayin'

I live there, and no one is confusing Congas for Starbucks. This is ridiculous. We know the difference.

I agree with FourBucks. It says "COFFEE" on the sign therefore it might confuse people. ;)

I can see a problem here.

@ParadigmABQ: 2 Letters! SUE EM!!!

It's an overweight Mermaid.

@svreader: "Conga" and "Starbucks" do share a letter, y'know.