Quote:
Originally Posted by missdpuck
I'm not a lawyer (of course duh) but I had to do research on something like this. I'll bet they get them on the fact that the actual product is coffee, no matter what the owners argue.
Apparently you have to change the product a certain percentage or something.
|
My wife studied art law and she says parody only applies if you pass of burden of proof that the parody is significantly different enough not to be confused with the original, i.e. Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup cans were altered enough to seem like a work of art (not to mention painted by hand, so could be considered "still life/objects" anyway). Andy was selling a painting, and not soup, and since they are selling coffee, they are capitalizing on the Starbucks' name and logo to make a profit that should otherwise go to the Starbucks company. This is way too similar, but it would have to be proven in a court of law obviously. Not to mention the trademark infringement of their logo which was unaltered. Basically it needs to seem like the original but must also convey it is definitively NOT the original, otherwise it is considered a "poor parody" and is subject to infringement of trademark protection. Apparently, intent of the infringer to pawn off their product as the other company's is a major stumbling block, as they admit as much in their little FAQ.
These guys are toast.