The IPKat learns from the Korean Times that Starbucks has lost a trade mark infringement suit in South Korea. On Friday, the South Korean Supreme court upheld a lower decision (noted by the IPKat here) that Elpreya’s round trade mark, consisting of the head of a classical lady, bounded by a green rim and the words ‘Starpreya Coffee’, would not cause confusion with the Starbucks trade mark because the trade marks are not considered similar. Moreover, Starbucks' trade mark was found not to be a famous mark. Both companies have been trading in South Korea since 1999.
As the IPKat said at the time of the earlier decision, he finds it hard to see how the two marks can be considered dissimilar.
S KOREAN STARBUCKS SLIP S KOREAN STARBUCKS SLIP Reviewed by Unknown on Sunday, January 14, 2007 Rating: 5


  1. Perhaps a case of parochialism winning out?

    I, for one, had to do a double take to work out which was which.

  2. Craig: perhaps you're just a moron in a hurry? :o)

    Though much the same thought did cross my mind. In football terms, the phrase "the referee's a homer" sprang to mind.

  3. Praise be to even the tiniest dent in the armour of global domination!!

    Three cheers for the S. Koreans.

    Coffee drinkrs know what's what. It would be impossible to go into another shop and confuse it for a Starbucks. Anymore that it would be to go into BurgerKing (even if it was renamed McBurger or whatever - with yellow arcs - see the film Coming To America) and confuse it for McDonalds.

    Consumers today are more sophisticated than people give them credit for. The bigger the brand, the less likely there is to be confusion.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.