Seattlepi.com reports on the representative of the owner owner of the Russian Starbucks trade mark – Sergei Zukyov. Although the American Starbucks company filed its name as a trade mark in 1997, the mark was cancelled for non-use. This allowed the company Zukyov represents to step in and register the mark. Now it is asking for $600,000 for the mark to be handed over to the American company. Zukyov takes the attitude that while this type of activity isn’t fair, it is legal.
The Starbucks trade mark on the moon is still up for grabs - for the moment...
The IPKat is somewhat ambivalent on this issue. On the one hand, the need for “use” to maintain registration is sensible. On the other hand, overzealous application of the requirement can allow third parties to take advantage of unused famous marks or pushes famous mark-owners into entering markets before they are ready to do so. The IPKat suspects that the answer lies in protection against bad faith registration. Not only are such third parties registering with the intent to take advantage of the earlier mark, but also, they do not have bona fide intent to use the famous mark as a trade marks for the goods or services for which it is registered.
STARBUCKS EXPANSION PLANS HALTED - BY A TRADE MARK
![STARBUCKS EXPANSION PLANS HALTED - BY A TRADE MARK]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
![[UPCKat] UPC Court of Appeal confirms that opt-outs may be withdrawn for patents subject to pre-UPC national litigation](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpmrXJ0cC3SxOoivC5ULhM28pQmX9tykkfzReC-ZaHlNPANbFKM6qY-jGJUpJbI6VWkoJH2kL867Uqs-KAOosZHW-Voz25uAZwOw2RUO65FeTgLEbGFtTAq6tQ-9-uzLRW4oHj1EcMR2xqvSOVOXN2BSRYuMJvTGXub5Htcij5mAgo2HX2M90LXA/s72-c/cat%20opt%20out.png)
Posts
Not so sure it is legal!
ReplyDeleteThe starbucks logo contains a nice little copyright work to which the 3rd party registering the mark does not have title.
Copyright infringement in the documents applying for the mark to start with, plus bad faith etc etc.
Starbucks would be able to successfully oppose that type of application in the UK, if the mark involved a copyright work to which the applicant had no rights.
The IP Dog.
Also Russia is a signatory to the Paris Convention, and so may well protect the Starbucks mark as well known mark (assuming that American culture has pervaded Russia enough to make Starbucks well known, of course).
ReplyDeleteAgreed on both points - the IPKat was merely reporting the words of Mr Zukyov
ReplyDelete