{"id":3284,"date":"2024-01-27T13:44:34","date_gmt":"2024-01-27T18:44:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ipbytes\/?p=3284"},"modified":"2024-07-16T03:57:42","modified_gmt":"2024-07-16T03:57:42","slug":"dumb-starbucks-or-smart-starbucks-brewing-up-effective-parodies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ipbytes\/dumb-starbucks-or-smart-starbucks-brewing-up-effective-parodies\/","title":{"rendered":"Dumb Starbucks or Smart Starbucks? Brewing Up Effective Parodies"},"content":{"rendered":"

Years before I started law school, I enjoyed indulging in the work of a comedian named Nathan Fielder, a master of absurdist comedy. Never did I realize this would be one of my first encounters with the many principles of trademark law. On his show, Nathan for You<\/em><\/a>, he acts as a \u201cconsultant\u201d helping real people with their real businesses. However, Nathan\u2019s version of \u201chelp\u201d only included absurd and unrealistic ideas, such as the concept of \u201cDumb Starbucks.\u201d
\n
\nDumb Starbucks \u2013 More than Comedy Genius <\/strong><\/p>\n

In this<\/a> episode, Nathan helps a coffee shop to turn around their business through a unique marketing plan. The coffee shop rebrands as \u201cDumb Starbucks\u201d \u2013 and it quite literally copies everything you know and love about Starbucks, down to the mermaid logo.<\/a> The only thing different about the store? They slapped the word \u201cDumb\u201d at the front of the Starbucks logo.<\/p>\n

\"\"
“Everyone is hanging out at Dumb Starbucks\u2122” by markdnger is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA.<\/a><\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Not only did the word \u201cdumb\u201d precede Starbucks, but it also preceded every single menu item and every item on sale at the store \u2013 from \u201cdumb espresso\u201d to \u201cdumb tea.\u201d In addition, the coffee was all free \u2013 which would never happen at a real Starbucks. When I watched this episode, I thought it was hilarious. But on second thought, I wondered how they could have gotten away with this. Clearly, the logo and store look identical to a Starbucks location. Wouldn\u2019t Starbucks have some legal rights against Nathan and the business featured in his show? I didn\u2019t have an answer to this question until I started learning about trademarks this year. \u201cDumb Starbucks\u201d is a parody!<\/p>\n

Trademarks and Parody <\/strong><\/p>\n

After we learned about parody in class, I immediately started googling this topic to see if there was an actual lawsuit. It turns out that Starbucks never sued. It got me thinking, is \u201cDumb Starbucks\u201d an effective parody? And how far can parody go to protect potential trademark infringers from liability?<\/p>\n

A trademark<\/a> is a source identifier. It can take the form of a word, phrase, symbol, or device and is used to distinguish your goods from others. A person or company can hold several trademarks at one time. For example, the word \u201cStarbucks<\/a>\u201d and the stylized logo<\/a> including the mermaid are both trademarks.<\/p>\n

A trademark owner may bring an infringement<\/a> claim against the owner of a similar mark being used on goods or services in commerce which might cause a likelihood of confusion<\/a> among consumers. Likelihood of confusion can be confusion as to the source of the goods or services or sponsorship\/affiliation of the goods or services. Confusion regarding the source of goods or services means consumers think the product is coming from the trademark holder when it is not. For example, there would be confusion as to source of goods if consumers thought Dumb Starbucks was in fact a real Starbucks. On the other hand, confusion regarding sponsorship or affiliation means although consumers realize the product is not coming from the trademark holder, they might think the trademark holder is sponsoring it in some way. Courts analyze several different factors<\/a> when determining if there is likelihood of confusion, such as the strength of the plaintiff\u2019s mark, whether the goods or services are related, how similar the marks are, and the similarity of the marketing channels. These factors serve as a guide for courts and not every factor needs to be met for the court to find a mark to infringe. This is commonly referred to as a a totality of the circumstances test.<\/p>\n

However, holders of famous, nationally recognized trademarks<\/a>, can also bring a federal dilution<\/a> charge against the owner of the similar mark even if there is little to no likelihood of confusion. Instead, the existence of the similar mark might dilute the power of the famous mark in two ways. It could blur<\/a> the strength of the famous mark or tarnish<\/a> the mark by associating it with something immoral or of shoddy quality.<\/p>\n

A parody is a creative and satirical work that is intended to imitate, mock, or make fun of something else using same or similar form. In trademark law, an effective parody<\/a> can help a defendant who has been sued for infringement or federal dilution avoid liability.<\/p>\n

What is an Effective Parody?<\/strong><\/p>\n

An effective parody must simultaneously seem like it is the original mark and<\/em> make it clear it\u2019s not the original. This is often done by mocking or making light of the original mark.<\/p>\n

An example of an effective parody is Chewy Vuitton<\/a>. A company called Haute Diggity Dog began making dog toys that looked like Louis Vuitton bags.<\/p>\n

\"\"
A dog and her Chewy Vuitton bag. Photo by Deanna Zandt licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0<\/a>.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

When you look at the bag, it does what an effective parody is supposed to do: remind you of the original while at the same time reminding you that it is not the original. The look of the dog toy and the name \u201cChewy Vuitton\u201d immediately call to mind the luxury handbag brand. But at the same time, you immediately recognize that it is not a luxury handbag brand, but a dog toy.<\/p>\n

An effective parody doesn\u2019t automatically save a defendant from liability \u2013 but can help significantly when applying the confusion factors. An effective parody typically shows that a consumer is not likely to become confused, because an effective parody notifies you that it is different from the original mark. In addition, the parody may even strengthen a famous mark rather than weakening it, because it reminds you of the original.<\/p>\n

Does \u201cDumb Starbucks\u201d Pass the Parody Test?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Applying the test from above, \u201cDumb Starbucks\u201d is an effective parody. It makes you think of the Starbucks mark because the parody logo is practically identical. The store is also set up in the same fashion. But at the same time, you know the logo is not the original, because of the word \u201cdumb\u201d in front of the store name and every single product in the store. Plus, the coffee was all free. The business featured in Nathan For You was clearly a joke, but can it really be that simple to avoid trademark liability?<\/p>\n

Well, parody only helps a defendant avoid liability by reducing likelihood of confusion. It is not a complete defense to infringement. So, if Starbucks did sue Nathan Fielder, \u201cDumb Starbucks\u201d would still need to pass a likelihood of confusion analysis.<\/p>\n

Starbucks chose not to litigate. The only interaction between Starbucks and \u201cDumb Starbucks\u201d in this case was Starbucks\u2019 public statement<\/a> that they appreciated the humor, but Nathan couldn\u2019t use their name. Eventually, after a short time, Nathan had to shut down<\/a> the \u201cDumb Starbucks\u201d business. It was not shut down for anything related to trademarks, but because he was operating the business without a license.<\/p>\n

Was Starbucks smart not to litigate?<\/strong><\/p>\n

If Starbucks did sue Nathan, a court would balance several factors in determining the likelihood of confusion, even after determining \u201cDumb Starbucks\u201d was an effective parody. Here, the marks are clearly very similar \u2013 in fact, if you remove the word \u201cdumb\u201d the marks are identical. Starbuck\u2019s logo is also a very strong trademark<\/a>. Not only is the logo creative and distinct, but since Starbucks is a national chain, there is market strength that makes the logo identifiable by society at large. Both \u201cDumb Starbucks\u201d and real Starbucks also provide the same goods and services since they are both fully operational coffee shops. But that is where the similarities stop.<\/p>\n

For example, \u201cDumb Starbucks\u201d provided coffee free of charge. The store also put the word \u201cdumb\u201d in front of every product. This shows a significant difference in products and manner of marketing than real Starbucks. This is a confusion factor weighing in favor of no confusion.<\/p>\n

Another confusion factor weighing in favor of \u201cDumb Starbucks\u201d is the intent of the defendant. Nathan Fielder is a comedian who filmed a TV Show about consulting small businesses on absurd business ideas. Since \u201cDumb Starbucks\u201d was a plot of an episode, the intent of the defendant was comedy. He did not try to benefit from the reputation of real Starbucks, he just wanted to get a laugh.<\/p>\n

Finally, and most importantly, there was no actual confusion<\/a>! Everyone who visited \u201cDumb Starbucks\u201d knew it wasn\u2019t an actual Starbucks. Plus, the store posted a frequently asked questions<\/a> sign that explicitly said it was not a \u201creal\u201d Starbucks and not associated with the company. When there is actual proof of no confusion, like in this case, it is hard to find for infringement.<\/p>\n

How far does parody go?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I think Starbucks was smart not to litigate this case. The fact that no one was actually confused and knew it was all for the plot of a TV show, makes a strong case for Nathan. But this does get me thinking \u2013 how far does parody in trademark law go? Would someone else, who wasn\u2019t a comedian filming a TV show, have gotten away with such a simple heist so easily?<\/p>\n

Well, one of the biggest factors weighing in Nathan\u2019s favor was that no one was confused. There were many reasons why people wouldn\u2019t be confused, but the strongest reason might be because Nathan Fielder created it, and people knew that. So, if someone who wasn\u2019t a famous comedian filming a TV show created \u201cDumb Starbucks\u201d I think it might be more likely they would have liability.<\/p>\n

Take for example, someone opens their own coffee shop with the \u201cDumb Starbucks\u201d logo. They sell their own coffee (and charge people money unlike Nathan), and they are not associated with any form of comedy. Would consumers be confused? Maybe. Although it would seem unlikely that Starbucks would sponsor something that used the word \u201cdumb\u201d in front of every product, it wouldn\u2019t be as clear. If it were me, I would wonder how someone could sell coffee at a caf\u00e9 that looks identical to Starbucks without<\/em> any sort of permission. The line here has become much more blurred.<\/p>\n

Although on its face, \u201cDumb Starbucks\u201d seemed to be the perfect crime \u2013 there was more involved in the parody than the simple play on words. I think that without Nathan\u2019s TV show being the bedrock for \u201cDumb Starbucks,\u201d Starbucks might have thought it was worth the trouble to litigate. Starbucks would likely have a better case for infringement if an actual caf\u00e9 had been capitalizing on its name, even if they attempted to use parody as a partial defense.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Elizabeth Schrieber<\/em>
\nAssociate Blogger<\/em>
\nLoyola University Chicago School of Law, J.D. 2025<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Years before I started law school, I enjoyed indulging in the work of a comedian named Nathan Fielder, a master of absurdist comedy. Never did I realize this would be one of my first encounters with the many principles of trademark law. On his show, Nathan for You, he acts as a \u201cconsultant\u201d helping real people with their real businesses. However, Nathan\u2019s version of \u201chelp\u201d … Continue reading Dumb Starbucks or Smart Starbucks? Brewing Up Effective Parodies<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":66,"featured_media":4022,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3284","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-trademarks"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ipbytes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3284","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ipbytes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ipbytes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ipbytes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/66"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ipbytes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3284"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ipbytes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3284\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4407,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ipbytes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3284\/revisions\/4407"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ipbytes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4022"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ipbytes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3284"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ipbytes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3284"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ipbytes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3284"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}