NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New. All posts have been closed to comments. Please visit underconsideration.com/brandnew for the latest version. If you would like to see this specific post, simply delete _v1 from the URL.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
pagalina’s comment is:
I think Starbucks is off-base. There are about a cajillion circular logos with type knocked out and some device, whether star or little circle, used to separate words. Now if it were another mermaid in the middle, I think they might have some basis for complaint. I don't believe anyone would mistake the two.
On May.26.2008 at 01:39 PM
Andrew’s comment is:
I think it's an obvious homage, since the team in question hails from the same hometown as as the coffee company. I also believe that parody and homage are protected, and *$ needs to back the frak off.
On May.26.2008 at 02:24 PM
Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:
Unless the Rollergirls sell coffee, Starbucks has no case.
And like Andrew said, it's clearly an homage. Or at least a reference.
The whole IP system in this country stinks, and one of the unfortunately symptoms is that companies have to "actively defend" this marks and copyrights. Not because it's a real threat, but because they have to "use it or lose it."
On May.26.2008 at 02:54 PM
Miles’s comment is:
Cripes that curved Verdana is so painful.
On May.26.2008 at 03:28 PM
Andrew Boardman’s comment is:
Sure, it's an homage. But that cartoon chick is cool. And here's a question I have about the Starbucks character: Is she spread eagle? It appears so.
On May.26.2008 at 05:24 PM
christapher’s comment is:
R AT CITY?
On May.26.2008 at 05:37 PM
Joe Szczepaniak’s comment is:
This is ridiculous. There have been oodles of logos that use stars within circles with type along the circular path. Starbucks wasn't the first to do it. How can they act like they own it?
On May.26.2008 at 05:45 PM
Marc Edwards’s comment is:
I'm with Joe... the Starbucks logo isn't even remotely original. Finding prior art would be a cinch.
On May.26.2008 at 07:11 PM
Pat Broderick’s comment is:
I found similar prior art without leaving Under Consideration:
http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/archives/002311.html
On May.26.2008 at 11:12 PM
Kevin M Scarbrough’s comment is:
If you can have two magazines titled "O", you can have two circular / starred logos sporting women in the middle.
On May.27.2008 at 02:45 AM
Daniel’s comment is:
It reminds me more of the Converse All Stars logo!
On May.27.2008 at 10:40 AM
Mike’s comment is:
I believe Starbucks has every right to fight for their trademark on this one. Even though the two brands are completely different in nature, and the color schemes differentiate both marks, and one appears flat and the other is given depth/dimension, and both evoke different moods, and one has brand history while the other is fairly uncommon, and one has a psychotic mermaid while the other a sadistic human... It would be very careless and irresponsible to think that saturating such a highly consumer trafficked area, such as a video game, with a mark so dangerously similar to Starbucks, WON'T cause brand confusion. Even when I look at the Rollergirl logo now, I feel the urge to drink less coffee, and drink more of that sweet caffeinated derby action.
On May.27.2008 at 11:16 AM
Mark’s comment is:
Besides the circle and the placement of the stars, I highly doubt that this logo looks remotely like the Starbucks logo, in fact it almost looks like they were indeed attempting to parody the Starbucks logo, hehe.
If they drop the stars, they might look a lot less like Starbucks.
On May.27.2008 at 04:28 PM
George Coghill’s comment is:
One of the technical details here that I think is being overlooked— in favor of bashing Starbucks — is the trademark law itself; companies are required to actively oppose potential trademark infringements or they risk losing their own trademark.
Now, Starbucks might also have shady motives behind all this, but with all the frivolous lawsuits ones sees in the headlines against companies that are doing well, if I were on the IP legal team you can bet I would be sending out these types of warnings, just to be sure there was a record of opposition.
The other side of the coin is that trademarks are word/text-based, and associated with specific products/industries. How these two could be confused in the consumers' mind over the same product or service is beyond me.
Still, with the opportunistic, litigious fever out there, I would be covering my ass on every detail if I were Starbucks.
On May.27.2008 at 06:49 PM
christopher’s comment is:
George,
You sound like you have some background in law and jurisprudence. Maybe you could clarify how Starbucks needs to cover their ass in this situation. How are they in danger of possibly losing their trademark if they do not put up legal opposition? It seems they are the ones creating a more litigious circumstance, not the roller derby girls.
Are you just baiting the argument the other way; a graduate of Oxford perhaps?
Joe Szczepaniak’s comment is:
Christopher, George's insight reminded me of a job I did developing an internal identity for First Data back a few years. I had attempted to fit a new symbol into the old First Data logo, but keep the same type treatment, color scheme, line quality, etc. I was told we could not do this because it would lend itself to "inconsistent usage" of the First Data wordmark. If a brand is used inconsistently competitors and potential designer-thieves cannot be sued as easily for copyright infringement. If a company brings a suit against them for infringement they can say, "How are we supposed to know what your trademark is? You use it so inconsistently! Which one is it?" I think that's what George is referring to.
Incidentally, I feel a bit foolish for my previous comment bearing in mind George's valid point. If Starbuck's were doing this for some other reason, though, I would still stand behind my previous comment.
On May.27.2008 at 08:08 PM
Kyle Hildebrant’s comment is:
George is the only person on point here.
People aren't considering the legal ramifications. There is a situation called "trademark dilution" that big companies must protect against. It isn't an issue of bullying every small company, it is an issue of due diligence.
Consider the use of Kleenex. This is a paralleled but relevant example. When the general public begins to use a trademark as a generic term (i.e. grab me a Kleenex--even if it may be a different brand)that brand risks loss of their trademark. So if Kleenex becomes a general term, then they can no longer protect it. This is why due diligence is needed. Its a matter of protecting one of your most valuable assets--your brand. It's not a matter of "picking on the little guy."
That aside, there is the issue of "parody". There is a part of the law that protects parodies--and no matter what anyone says about this being "different" it is obviously an intentional parody.
I'm not here to back up "the big guy" but please consider that facts before you put them up against the wall. It's our duty as brand stewards.
On May.27.2008 at 11:06 PM
Renée’s comment is:
Evan’s comment is:
I agree that Concentric circles and stars have been used many times before Starbucks appropriated it. I found 2 good examples (1938 Olden Minerals logo and the 1920 logo for Taylor Bros Spark Plugs) of circle/star logos which I posted here.
On May.28.2008 at 05:55 PM
Nick C’s comment is:
Here's a brief history of the evolution of the Starbuck's logo, and the Slog has some interesting nuggets in the comments.
On May.29.2008 at 06:58 AM
justin’s comment is:
Im with bucks on this - the chick has striped sleeves, stars - they are re-imagining(?) the Starbucks logo - it's more than circles and curved type people.
On May.29.2008 at 11:09 AM
exigent’s comment is:
Get a clue justin, 'bucks is off base as most companies that cry "infringement!" But like most companies, they must protect their image and brand like armin remarked in the Apple dispute.
Still, the women drawn are in completely different styles and angles. Not to mention the font isn't exactly alike... 'Bucks sports the bold.
Fight on Rat City Girls.
On May.29.2008 at 05:18 PM
sam’s comment is:
Why so harsh on Juston, I see what he's saying. Not saying Starbucks isn't suit crazy... but cmon - there is NO denying where they (Rat City Girls) got their imagery.
On May.29.2008 at 05:49 PM
PhilMcCracken’s comment is:
yeah there is a reason their logo looks like it does.
Starbucks is HUGE brand and we all know what it looks like in our sleep.
This brand "borrowing", is nothing new and might not be reason enough to sue someone in theory, but to say crap like fight on girls is stupid, the rollergirls should "fight on" by doing themselves a logo that doesn't RELY on a famous one. Cause this one does. Period
On May.29.2008 at 05:53 PM
mammalpants’s comment is:
hahahha my gf just said, "Well, the Ramones should sue Starbucks." and i thought it was witty.
Hmmmmm’s comment is:
people are missing the point - the ramones doesn't borrow elements from the starbucks logo other than shape, which isn't an issue.
On May.30.2008 at 11:18 AM
orangetiki’s comment is:
total malarkey. Starbucks thinks they can own the trademark of a circular logo? The circles are not even the same. Different fonts, etc. Sure maybe you want it to look like the coffee shop, but geez cut a little bit of slack. It's a GAME. Are their lawyers that inept or do they have to justify their jobs ad salaries by picking on a video game and a rollergirl team?
On May.30.2008 at 11:50 AM
dfhetyjetyh’s comment is:
well if they rape children in said video game I wouldn't want my logo in there.
On May.30.2008 at 05:08 PM
Kyle Hildebrant’s comment is:
Did anyone ready my post? Does anyone actually understand the due diligence required for protecting from band dilution?
Dead God, people. Stop trying to crucify a "big company" for doing their job, and protecting the brand.
It amazes me how near sighted designers can be--yet we claim to be this elite group of "problem solvers", when the reality is 90% don't have a clue about real world business issues. How can you solve a "business problem" when you can't begin to grasp the issues the govern business?
On May.31.2008 at 09:47 PM
los’s comment is:
amen brother
On Jun.02.2008 at 09:57 AM
phil’s comment is:
I think they should both be sued by Lifesavers. The candy with the hole in the center. Even the little lady in the midst of the Starbucks logo was "borrowed" from earlier art nouveau styled work.
I say Sb is acting kind of Pt if you ask me.
On Jun.02.2008 at 02:26 PM
Paul Reid’s comment is:
Trademark? What's that?
Image taken in Sana'a, Yemen. Click the image to view it larger. (And apologies for the gallery embed template that messed up on a recent update.)
Rob’s comment is:
Not sure if anyone mentioned this. Looks like a skate wheel to me.
On Jun.03.2008 at 03:20 AM
hmmmm’s comment is:
it doesn't have anything to do with a skate wheel, but I sure they will say that now.
On Jun.03.2008 at 11:15 AM
Rob’s comment is:
...but they are a roller derby team.
And it looks like a typical skate wheel.
MIke’s comment is:
Brand dilution? Considering the nature of the sport, I see a parody. Starbucks is such a well-known part of Seattle it seems likely that there's an intentional reference.
Most of these derby teams start out as super DIY organizations that don't think a large corporation like Starbucks is gonna come after them. Look at the Verdana — this is probably the work of amateur or at least a volunteer who probably didn't get paid and likely didn't imagine Starbucks would ever even notice.
And this phrase from the article raised a flag, if you ask me:
"There's no kind of gray when it comes to trademark; it's very much a yes or no situation"
You're right! Design, it's so absolute.
On Jun.05.2008 at 12:30 PM
Kit’s comment is:
Heh... I'm sorry i just thought the thing about the ramones was funny... hey it's a circle and it's got lotsa stars lol...c'mon starbucks are you ready to take on the ramones? lol
On Jun.26.2008 at 08:23 AM
Alyssa’s comment is:
Rat City Rollergirls Registered Trademark
On Oct.23.2008 at 04:56 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
