Features

Arrest of Journalists Threatens Press Freedom

Bush and the 'Pathology of Normalcy'

California Creates Family Leave Program

Cotton: World's Most Toxic Crop

Polls Build Public Support for War

Hormone Replacement Therapy in question

Iraq for Dummies

The Struggle Against Neo-Colonialism

No New War Against Iraq

Peru: Bayer Responsible in Pesticide Deaths

Schools Implement Pesticide 'Right to Know' Act

September 11 Families Call for Peace

Starbucks vs Sambucks

Supreme Court limits death penalty

Sweatshop Fashion Statements Not Attractive

Tough Winter for Montana Buffalo

Universal Health Care Pursued by Initiative

Regulars

Reader Mail

Northwest & Beyond

Envirowatch

Good Ideas from Different Countries

Global Warming Update

Workplace Issues

Bob's Random Legal Advice

Starbucks vs Sambucks

Publicity spurs business for independent coffee shop

by Glenn Reed, contributor

It appears that our local coffee leviathan is, once again, flexing its macho/mocha muscles in the face of another small coffee shop--this time in Astoria, Oregon.

The case is an interesting one in that the business being targeted by Starbucks for trademark infringement is called Sambucks. According to a media statement released by Starbucks back in July:

"Even where it seems playful, this type of misappropriation of our name (and reputation) is both derivative and dilutive of our trademark."

At first glance one might assume "Sambucks" to be a play on the name of the multinational coffee giant and that Starbucks has a very strong case. If so, it would be comparable to another suit being brought by the corporation against the Black Bear Micro Roastery of Tuftonboro, New Hampshire for naming one of their coffee blends "Charbucks." However, this was an admitted use of a variation of the Starbucks name while the catch with Sambucks is that it is owned and operated by a woman by the name of Samantha Buck-Lundberg,. She has gone by the nickname "Sam Buck" for most of her life.

Lundberg has lived in Astoria for 25 years and worked as a waitress and in real estate before buying the Astoria Coffee House a couple of years ago. She changed the name to Sambucks and later came up with a sign/logo based upon a sketch of a mug made by her mother. The business is located right alongside the busy Route 101 in town.

"I saved the sketch and used it to make stamps and the ink I use is orange," notes Lundberg. "My coffee shop window has the mug painted on it also and there is no resemblance to the Starbucks logo."

Starbucks does not presently have a franchise in Astoria, but does operate one inside of a Fred Meyer store in the town of Warrington, about five miles distant. It is not known if plans are in the making for opening one and a Starbucks spokesperson did not respond on this or any other questions from the WFP on the case, except by sending a copy of a media statement they issued on July 19.

However they are, apparently, worried that the presence of a nearby coffee shop with a similar name is a threat to the public. According to this communication, Starbucks is worried about the potential for mistaken identity contained in the name "Sambucks" and how this might harm the public.

".....we will take legal steps to protect the value of our trademark, and protect the public from confusion and deception, when we are unable to resolve a matter through alternate means."

"No one ever confused me with Starbucks growing up," counters Lundberg , age 33. "People know me around here as 'Sam Buck.'"

Starbucks had issued a cease and desist letter to Lundberg back in March, offering her compensation for the costs of changing her sign and other materials bearing the Sambucks name. She refused, but countered that she would do so for the sum of $60,000. Consequently, Starbucks has seemingly taken the tack that the whole affair may be a case of someone trying to make an easy buck off of the coffee giant.

According to the Starbucks statement: "Sambucks' attorneys have indicated to us that they are seeking a substantial monetary settlement. While we do not feel it is appropriate to pay people merely to respect our rights, we invited them to provide additional information to support any belief that they were entitled to more than our original offer."

In early September, Starbucks continued its offensive by sending Lundberg a 150-page injunction. The injunction was dismissed by a judge in October, so score one for Sambucks.

While Lundberg admits that the publicity resulting from this David vs Goliath-type case has led to an increase in customers, a monetary windfall is not her motivation for fighting Starbucks. Stories about her have appeared in the The Oregonian out of Portland, the Astoria paper, on the Independent Media Center web site, WKXL Channel 8 in Portland and elsewhere. Demonstrations against the Starbucks suit have been held at a Starbucks in Portland and many have been sending donations to Lundberg for her defense fund.

However, Lundberg is also feeling the stress--both physical and financial--of pursuing this fight.

"We could go to trial in one year, or it could be three years out," she points out. "It's all taken a lot of energy and some days I feel drained from people asking me about it."

The experience has also broadened her awareness of issues involving multinationals.

"I'd never encountered anything like this before in my life, so didn't have anything to compare it to," she says. "Now I connect it with what's been in the news about corporate corruption, the stock market, keeping people in the dark until little things start to come out. I've learned a lot in the last months."

Certainly, the lawsuit must be putting a kink in the recent efforts by Starbucks to, at least, appear to be a "kinder and gentler" multinational through such efforts as heavy publicity about its a fair trade blend of coffee (following extensive public pressure).

If you are interested in contributing to Samantha Buck-Lundberg's defense fund should make out checks to the Bank of Astoria and send the donations to 1154 Commercial Street, Astoria, Oregon 97103.