DoubleShot Coffee To Customers: Mistook Us For Starbucks? You’re An Idiot.

More words of wisdom from our favorite anti-Starbucks crusader, Brian Franklin, proprietor of DoubleShot Coffee:

…as a legal clarification, I would like everyone to know that we are not Starbuck’s Doubleshot. If we tricked you into coming in here, thinking you could get a can of Starbuck’s DoubleShot here, please let me know.

And if you thought that $2 Tuesday was a sale on Starbuck’s Doubleshot, I vehemently apologize for the confusion and ask you to please not come in here anymore because stupid people annoy me…

Please tell as many people as you can about this outrageous Starbucks chicanery. We figure that the more publicity and public indignation we stir up, the better chance we will have at standing up against this evil corporate empire.

We really dig Brian’s outspokenness on this. He’s calling Starbucks’ bluff: to try to intimidate him into silence with legal threats even as they are clearly in the wrong. A lot of smaller business you’ve never heard from get driven out of business by completely unfair practices like this on the part of major corporations all the time. Brian’s right: it’s time to stop allowing large companies to bleed their competition out of business with frivolous lawsuits designed to bankrupt them on legal fees. Spread the word, guys.

DoubleShot across the bow [Batesline]
Related: DoubleShot Coffee Fights Back Against Starbucks
Related: Starbucks Sues DoubleShot Espresso

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. ValkRaider says:

    Didn’t work so well for Samantha Buck.

    “Judge Sides With Starbucks in Name Dispute”
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archi

  2. Jay says:

    I do think that some of the blame here lies with the way that U.S. trademark laws have been established and enforced. Under the current system, if a company doesn’t defend its trademark *every* time it sees any sort of possible infringement, no matter how theoretical that infringement might be, that company is at risk of having its trademark declared genericized and losing it forever. “Doubleshot” may be a common term, but who let Starbucks trademark it in the first place? I do think that this particular lawsuit is absurd; the problem is, if they let it slide here, then Pepsi or some other major beverage company could come to market with a canned espresso drink called “Doubleshot” (which *absolutely* be confusing similarity), exactly the same as Starbucks’ product, and Starbucks would have a serious problem defending itself because it didn’t defend its trademark in other instances.

  3. OkiMike says:

    “DoubleShot” espresso, with no spaces and a capital ‘S’ is a trademark and can be enforced as one.

    A “double shot” of something or another is not infringment.

    In the above Samantha Buck dispute, she should’ve called her company “Sam Buck’s Coffee Company” and she would have gotten away with it, because no one can force her out of using her name on the shop. But because she chose to shorten it to “Sam” and join it into a one-word “Sambucks”, yeah, she was diluting “Starbucks’s” trademark.