Wait...is that an elephant or a mermaid in that picture? I'm confused.

[www.illegal-art.org] (may be considered NSFW)

that's silly. i mean really, who would confuse the two?

@svreader: "Conga" and "Starbucks" do share a letter, y'know.

It's an overweight Mermaid.

@ParadigmABQ: 2 Letters! SUE EM!!!

That is strikingly similar. And they also happen to be in the same business.

I can see a problem here.

It's not confusing, but they were clearly trying to mimic the Starbucks logo if you ask me. I remember seeing that store while driving by and thinking "They better watch out, copying the Starbucks logo like that!" Guess I was right.

I agree with FourBucks. It says "COFFEE" on the sign therefore it might confuse people. ;)

Wow, that's really bitchy of Starbucks. I highly doubt there's anyway to confuse the two unless you've never ever been in a Starbucks before and are illiterate. And blind.

I get it... I don't think the lawsuit is without merit.

I live there, and no one is confusing Congas for Starbucks. This is ridiculous. We know the difference.

They're just threatening a lawsuit, right? Not actually suing them at this point.

Now I remember why I thought Starbucks is evil. Let's say it looks like their logo, I don't think this company is in any danger of overthrowing Starbucks. That and consumers aren't morons. It's a circle, it's green, d'oh.

@DallasDMD: How could that case have even gone to trial? It's clear parody, which is protected. :(

I think it should depend on whether Conga Coffee & Tea had their logo first. If they weren't first, they need to change it. It's too similar. Company with green circle logo that sells coffee = Starbucks.

I disagree with Starbucks but I don't think they are completely without a point. Based on my super scientific analysis, I've determined that the Conga sign resembles a Starbucks sign in my peripheral vision. So, if I'm driving down the street thinking about going to Starbucks and I see the Conga sign out of the corner of my eye, I might slow my car. Upon realizing it's Conga, not Starbucks, I might decide to stop anyways (perhaps missing the Starbucks on the next block). Just sayin'

Seriously, if they only own two shops they should try to arbitrate. Tell them that they're perfectly will to change their sign, especially since emulation wasn't their intention. But Starbucks should give them a 6 months to a year to make the change.

That should be enough time to hold a "please keep us from getting sued by the Evil Coffee Empire" benefit for two new signs.

Still, Starbucks is verging on RIAA cockbaggery with this kind of move.

I think the real reason of this law suit, they're required to file suits against stuff like this in order to validate their brand image and if they don't later on they won't be able to. It seems amazingly retarded, just like something our government could create!

I think one time I saw Starbuck from Battlestar Galatica drink coffee. Battlestar Galatica came from Star Wars. Hence I beleive George Lucas should sue all three companies (BG, Starbucks, and Congo) for infrigment. Go George!

@medic78: Awww, hell. Should've gotten Prepaid Legal afterall.

@lincolnparadox: The sign has been around for 11 years. They don't need to change it. How long has starbucks used that same logo? How long have they been in Michigan? In Detroit? Those all relate to the suit and how likely it is to pass. Two companies can have similar logos, and the first one to market in a area is the one most likely to win.

Hate to say it, but I really think they have the law on their side (of course, this coming from a someone who was once a pseudo-IP-paralegal, only 10 months on the job).

For what it's worth, check out how nuanced the product/service descriptions get on their records here:

[tess2.uspto.gov]

@gniterobot: How is an elephant even close to a mermaid?

@mbills2: Actually, I think Hermann Melville might have something to say about that.

I agree with nequam. Regulars may know that Conga is not Starbucks, but others may get easily confused. This has happened to me, with another small chain, BZB Coffee. They don't even have green in their logo, but the font they use in their name, together with the store setup, were enough to confuse me. I realized my mistake only after I handed them my Starbucks card, and based on the cashier's reaction my confusion wasn't all that uncommon. People ought to realize that others (including me) tend to go to coffee shops when low on caffeine, at which time we get easily confused by store layouts, signs and logos.

I had an "old fashion" style doughnut last Thursday from 'Bucks = $1.75 for 1, 2 oz. hunk of flour and sugar. Done deal, no more Starbucks for me.

Do they burn the coffee beans and over charge?

Huh? No? Case closed.

Speaking for starbucks I do get it, in the peripheral one might think that it is starbucks coffee. This has nothing to do with the image in the center, but the general shape and color.

As for Conga, if that truely has been their logo for 11 years then they do hold precedent in that area. But if they plan on expansing to other markets they may be required to change the logo.

As for the legal outcome. It will most likely go to arbitration, and since Conga doesn't have the size of legal or money that starbucks has, Conga may unfortunately have to change their logo rather than fight in court for years. As that fight would most likely cause him to go out of business and starbucks will jump into those stores.

On a side, there is a dry cleaners near me, that has a green circle and image in the middle for their logo, and I have thought it was a starbucks a few times myself. However once close enough it is apparent that it is not a coffee house at all.

@Jozef: How on earth would you confuse that with Starbucks? Much less actually walk in and order thinking it was starbucks. O_O

i'm glad i don't go to starbucks!

@darkened: FTW...I've also heard this before. Like kleenex, velcro and qtips...all brands that have lost their meaning.

@Buran: It's not about the figure. It's the color scheme, layout and design.

Obviously the two are strikingly similar. I wouldn't look at it and think it's a starbucks, but I certainly might think that it's related to starbucks, and if I had a bad experience I may then associate it unfairly with starbucks brand.

Not unreasonable at all.

Oh surely a couple idiots mistaking that little shop's logo for a starbucks by some incredible blindness will make Starbucks go bankrupt.

Starbucks, get a life. Continue running your bigass coffee shops and leave the small fries alone.

I see this coffee shop all the time, and always wondered why they never received a C&D (you know, before actually getting sued). The issue isn't that they're identical, the issue is the overall look and feel. Starbuck's has a famous mark, and it's easily defensible. Furthermore, to preserve their mark, they must defend it. If Conga doesn't submit to a C&D, a lawsuit is the logical next step. It's not necessarily Starbucks' being evil, but a legal requirement to protect their mark. If Conga were strictly a tea store, or a different type of store, then they'd likely be okay. Then again, maybe not. Notice how I keep referring to Starbucks' mark as a "famous mark" rather than just a trademark? These have even stronger, especial protection, in that you're generally not allowed to use them even for unrelated businesses. If you make a furniture business and use the Coca-Cola logo (or even the name), for example, you'd still have some problems due to famous marks.

Again, the marks don't have to be identical, only prone to cause confusion. The law doesn't state prone to confusion after careful study, though. Despite the fact that I know this coffee shop is there, I always think of Starbucks every, single time I glimpse the sign. I'm a bright guy and not easily confused, but yet it happens. Kind of reinforces the famous mark, too.

There's one possible way out, though. Was this mark used in this area prior to Starbucks mark being a famous mark, and prior to any Starbucks' being in the area?

Starbucks does not have the law on their side. That is determined by a jury. Billable hours are way down in the Michigan attorney community. Given Michigan's tort reforms, working for Starbucks scaring the hell out of independent businessmen is more lucarative than chasing ambulances By the way, the case has not gone to trail. Conga took their shot in the court of public opinion,They called a reporter on a slow news day. At least three million people read the Sunday Free Press. Conga might lose, but they gave Starbucks a bloody nose.

I don't think that anyone will literally think that they're Starbucks. More likely, it would work like this:

You're driving along. You're looking for coffee. You see the green circle, and think, "Mmm, coffee!" You take a second look and realize that it isn't Fourbucks, and you're a little disappointed, but then you realize that it is a coffee place, and hey, maybe they're not so bad, and you still want it, so you pull over instead of keeping up your search for the Green Circle That Brings Consciousness.

None of which really justifies Starbucks' lawsuit, IMO and IANAL and all that, any more than the first diner to have Art Deco style lettering can sue all the others.

@balthisar: I'm with the big heartless corporation on this one. Why a green circle? It has no relationship to the name or the service except someone else uses a green circle too.

@causticitty: Don't underestimate the power of caffeine deficiency ;)

I think that Target should sue Starbuck's, because colorblind shoppers might get confused by the circular logos.

Just replace the elephant with a manatee.

@Steel_Pelican:

It's true. Red and Green are commonly confused by people who are colorblind.

Starbucks is right. These are very similar with a quick look. You don't believe this guy had the intention of trying to use a similar logo? People try to get away with it all the time.

I say Starbucks prevails in this lawsuit. Remember this post when the case is settled so I can say "I told you so".

It is very close, Both Signs are green and Both say Coffee.

Starbucks Green Sign came in 1992. This one 1996, If it has been the same for 11 years. So SB was first.

But to mistake the elephant for a mermaid, you gotta be blind.

How widespread was Starbucks eleven years ago? I don't think I saw my first until 98 or 99.

I wonder if that plays into things.... if his logo predates Starbucks expansion into that region, would it be different than if they opened after Starbucks had reached that area?

Apparently they aren't just in the coffee business.
[www.google.com]

In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961).

1. Starbucks mark is exremely strong.
2. Same goods.
3. Similarity. Same general design, green circle with white writing with an inset image. This is not copyright law, it does not have to be an exact duplicate.
4. Evidence of actual confusion? I don't know enough about the situation.
5. Similar marketing channels? Simply the sign in front of the store? Again, factually dependent and we do not have all the facts.
6. I would say that when one needs a caffine fix, the degree of caution is diminished. If I was driving by and caught the green circle, I would assume it was a Starbucks and stop. Then, even if it was not Starbucks, my need for caffine would most likely rule and I would buy. So, based on the average caffine junky, it would seem the degree of caution is low.
7. Intent. We do not have the facts to discerne the intent of the Michigan store.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion. Feel free to look at these seven factors however you will but please do not make assumptions as to intent, and factually based issues of which you cannot know. Thanks.

@Jozef: "I realized my mistake only after I handed them my Starbucks card, and based on the cashier's reaction my confusion wasn't all that uncommon."
Foolish. People pull out the wrong card all the time at the grocery store I work at. Doesn't mean that stores should start suing each other because they all have loyalty cards.

@calvinneal: Actually questions of law are generally decided by the judge. Questions of fact are left to the jury. As we have a legitimate question of law and not enough facts one cannot decide who is right and wrong. Nice though to throw out the irrelevant tangent about billable hours. Also, I could not find the Free Press article too which you referred. Last, where do you get that 3 million people read the Free Press. I know my number is out of date but in 1996, Sunday was 750K. In the age of the internet, even with increasing popluation (though I am pretty sure Michigan has lost people in the last 10 years) I doubt that it has increase 4 fold.

Makes me want to not shop at Starbucks...oh, wait I don't shop at Starbucks anymore. Working on week 5!!! I feel like a person who has given up smoking.