Hard to swallow: Starbucks’ trademark dilution claim

Description

Abstract: This past November, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that coffee giant Starbucks wasn’t entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting the use of a competitor’s product names. This article explains why the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding that the marks were only minimally similar, and why the circuit court determined that a survey Starbucks used in support of its trademark dilution claim was fundamentally flawed. Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee Inc. d/b/a Black Bear Micro Roastery, No. 12‐364‐cv, Nov. 15, 2013 (2nd Cir.)Abstract: This past November, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that coffee giant Starbucks wasn’t entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting the use of a competitor’s product names. This article explains why the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding that the marks were only minimally similar, and why the circuit court determined that a survey Starbucks used in support of its trademark dilution claim was fundamentally flawed. Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee Inc. d/b/a Black Bear Micro Roastery, No. 12‐364‐cv, Nov. 15, 2013 (2nd Cir.)