Re: Why do you hate Starbucks, are you uncultured?

I'm not Flasherly but I will translate from the legalese:

At some point while this endless litigation was going on, Congress changed
(lowered) the standard for proving trademark infringement in the case of
"famous" trademarks (there is one set of trademark laws for the rich and
"famous" like Coca Cola and another set of trademark laws for Joe's Sandwich
Shop - so much for "equal protection". Also so much for Congress not being
bought and paid for by corporate interests). Formerly, the standard was the
accuser had to show proof of "actual dilution" (e.g. proof that your sales
had actually been damaged because your customers were switching to Kaka
Cola - hard to show if your corporation's sales have been rising the way
Wall St. likes). Now all you have to show is "a likelihood of dilution"
(e.g. you hire an expert to say that he did a survey and the average
illiterate illegal alien on the street confused Charbucks with Starbucks
when the two words were printed in six point type and held at a distance of
five yards 6 out of 10 times). The appeals court sent the case back to the
trial court instructing them to apply the new standard. Now it really
sounds like the trial judge did not like Starbucks and might rule against
them again anyway, but the next time Starbucks might win on appeal if
Starbucks could show that the judge made an "error of law" in not accepting
their "likelihood of dilution" evidence.

Or in short, Starbucks, having lost, is awarded a rematch and this time is
allowed to put a roll of quarters in its boxing glove. If the ref still
gives the match to Black Bear, they can appeal one more time.

See what I mean about it being insane to go up against a multibillion $
corporation that has the $ to buy Congress?


"johnbo" <johnbo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5c08e62605274c53a714a9d41cbe58b8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
nobody sane is willing to spend the money to litigate them to the bitter
end, but in this case, they were (courtesy of Zurich Ins. Co.) and Black

Bear prevailed (the last note was that Starbucks was appealing as of '06
but
I assume the appeal was denied as most are).

Here is a link to the appeal... maybe Flasherly can interpret it for us
hahaha

http://tinyurl.com/3de6jk

--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutdrinks.com/group/alt.coffee/
More information at http://www.talkaboutdrinks.com/faq.html




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dont Ask Dont.....
    ... the bluedogs I mentioned earlier joining them, DADT ... have Congress do it or have the Supremes do it. ... Solicitor General Says Government 'Does Not Have a Viable Argument to Advance in the Statute's Defense' ... Today is Congress' last day to respond to the federal appeals court in the D.C. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Why Taxes are Going to Have to Go Up
    ... Congress will meaningfully and significantly cut down its spending? ... Talking about earmarks is like talking about a teenager who borrows 10 ... Starbucks will buy you a cup of coffee. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: To Protect And Serve-"How would I know? I wasnt there. None of us were there though, were we
    ... worse than the rest of you in the double standard department. ... Mebbe he's been instructed to play to the new expert fans south ... Interesting that it appeals to the new experts so much, ...
    (rec.scuba)
  • Re: Behe aint doing Dover any favors
    ... not a criminal case where the standard is beyond reasonable ... Behe and crew aren't going for the appeals. ... Webpage Sorcery ...
    (talk.origins)
  • RE: Forensic/Cyber Crime Investigator
    ... To contradict several posts that have stated there are no standard processes for digital forensics; ... Australia, Standards Australia has a handbook for the collection and presentation of digital evidence ... More on standard forensic proceedures may be optained from ... State of Wisconsin, Court of Appeals, 24 May 2000 ...
    (Security-Basics)