Did Starbucks Tell An Art Project About Starbucks Not To Use Its Name?

from the misuses-of-trademark-law dept

This one seems odd, and there's not enough evidence here to know how true the story is (or what the details behind it are). However, Copyfight has noticed a blog post about an online "art project" to show a comparison of the locations of local coffee shops with local Starbucks. The idea, of course, is to encourage people to go to the non-Starbuckian shops (though, in its current format, with very few independent coffee shops included, it seems to serve the opposite purpose, by just showing you where the Starbucks are, and leaving you thinking there's no competition). However, what caught the attention of the Copyfighter in question was the comments to that blog post, where someone asks why the offering, called Delocator.net doesn't appear to actually mention Starbucks anywhere. Someone apparently involved with the project responds that they were not allowed to use the name Starbucks anywhere, as Starbucks' lawyers would not allow it. This brings up the obvious question: why should Starbucks' lawyers have a say in such things? The only claim they could make is a violation of trademark, and if the site is clearly not associated with Starbucks (and the fact that they're pushing people to go elsewhere might give you a hint that they're not associated with Starbucks), then it's not a violation of trademark. Instead, it looks like Starbucks is yet another company trying to use trademark law outside of its intended purpose of avoiding confusion over brands, but more towards anti-competitive practices. Will they go after another coffee shop that compares their coffee to Starbucks' next? Of course, thanks to this policy, hopefully the Delocator site will get additional publicity -- proving, once again, that the Streisand effect works. The more you try to shut something down, the more likely it will spread via the internet.