Article Assignment - Kane Rogozynski
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Wilfrid Laurier University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
BU111
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
Pages
5
Uploaded by krogozynski
Part 1 Summary of Findings
:
This analysis delves into a recent news article titled “Dumb Starbucks was the perfect
crime, but Starbucks was smart to play dumb”. This analysis aims to establish that this incident
would qualify as a case of copyright infringement in current Canadian intellectual property law.
This memorandum aims to seek compensation for the plaintiff (Starbucks corporation), and the
analysis aims to highlight the gross misuse of intellectual property by the defendant (Nathan
Fielder).
Part 2 Facts
:
As reported in “Dumb Starbucks was a perfect crime, but Starbucks was smart to play
dumb”, in February 2014 the defendant Nathan Fielder opened a store called “Dumb Starbucks”
using the Starbucks trademarked logo as a parody for his Comedy Central show Nathan For You.
Framed as a parody art gallery that served free coffee the store garnered national media attention.
The defendant also took steps to decorate the store to replicate a Starbucks even going as far as
to use real Starbucks items to fill the store. The defendant had many food items and non-food
items available for purchase in the Dumb Starbucks retail location. The defendant was under the
employment of Comedy Central at the time of the incident.
Part 3 Legal Principles
:
The plaintiff, the Starbucks Corporation has many courses of legal action. The Copyright
Act specifically allows for some actions that would otherwise be considered copyright violations.
The most significant exemption permits the fair use of copyrighted materials for research,
individual investigation, teaching, parody, and satire. The defendant Nathan Fielder has used the
Starbucks trademarked name and logo without the expressed permission of the Starbucks
Corporation. If deemed malicious or damaging by Starbucks the use of the trademark may be
cause for a lawsuit. The Starbucks Corporation may sue the defendant for the tort of passing off.
In regards to the tort of passing off the plaintiff must prove that the defendant took advantage of
the Starbucks brand and misled the public for the defendant's gain. Starbucks may also file a
lawsuit on the claim of Copyright infringement. Legally speaking copyright infringement occurs
when a person without the consent of the owner, does an act that only the owner has the right to
do. This may occur in the form of communication, public performance, publication, or
reproduction. According to the legal principle of vicarious liability Comedy Central may be
liable for damages if it is found that their employee committed a tortious act. Given the many
avenues for legal action if the Starbucks corporation felt their brand or reputation had been
damaged by the actions of the defendant there will be plenty of legal grounds for a lawsuit. In
this scenario, Starbucks's cooperation would sue the defendant for copyright infringement.
The legal defense to copyright infringement would be that the defendant acted in fair use
under the legal argument that the store was a clear parody. Legally fair use of copyright has very
clear caveats about the use of copyrighted material. One important rule is that copyrighted
images or trademarks cannot be used for commercial purposes which puts an asterisk on the
defendant's argument of fair use. Another legal principle that may counteract the claim of fair use
is confusion. In legal terms, confusion would occur if the similar branding of “Dumb Starbucks”
may cause customers to confuse the store for a real Starbucks. Legally Starbucks may also have
grounds to claim that “Dumb Starbucks” as a brand dilutes the intellectual property of Starbucks.
Part 4 Application
:
Given the circumstances of this incident, the defendant would more than likely cite
parody and fair use as legal grounds for Dumb Starbucks. One key aspect of the copyright act is
that copyrighted images or material can be used for parody criticism or satire purposes. The
satirical intent and its commentary on coffee shop culture would be key aspects in the legal
defense of Dumb Starbucks. A key piece of information in this case is that the defendant did not
differentiate itself from Starbucks and even leaned into the confusion by replicating the decor
within the store. This fact would likely be enough legal evidence that customers would be likely
to confuse the two brands resulting in damage or dilution to the Starbucks brand. Starbucks
might claim that the use of its brand even in a satirical manner may dilute the distinctiveness of
its intellectual property. Furthermore, Dumb Starbucks had a retail aspect to its parody which
would negate the protection it received from the copyright act as infringement for commercial
use is a clear violation of fair use law.
In regards to Starbucks bringing a claim of passing off the plaintiff would have to prove
the defendant took advantage of the Starbucks brand and misled the public for his gain. The
defendant used the Starbucks brand for satirical purposes because of the established brand and
since Dumb Starbucks garnered media attention for himself and his show the defendant was able
to benefit from the Starbucks established brand. Since the defendant did not present Dumb
Starbucks as a coffee store similar to Starbucks and instead presented it as an art installation
claims of passing off and unfair competition would be unlikely to succeed in court.
Since an employment relationship exists the defendant's employer Comedy Central
would also be liable for tortuous actions taken by the employee. Although Comedy Central may
not have direct involvement in the creation of Dumb Starbucks they would still be liable for
damages under vicarious liability law as they are responsible for the actions of their employee.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
This claim would be even further supported by the fact that the defendant likely used company
resources which would have required authorization from some form of management.
Part 5 Conclusion
:
Due to the commercial nature of Dumb Starbucks, the endeavor is not protected
under fair use copyright law and the plaintiff would succeed with their claim of copyright
infringement. Due to the existing employment relationship and the fact that the defendant acted
in the course of his employment the employer Comedy Central would be liable for this action. A
claim of passing off would be unlikely to succeed due to the nature of the satire and the fact that
the defendant differentiated his business model from Starbucks. Given the circumstances, the
plaintiff would be unlikely to collect damages as the existence of Dumb Starbucks did not impact
Starbucks in a significant enough manner. The position of Starbucks Corporation did not change
as a result of the tortuous act and therefore the only resulting action would be the ordered closure
of Dumb Starbucks.
Part 6 Ethics
:
Because Dumb Starbucks used the Starbucks name and logo in a parody, it presents
ethical and legal issues. The legal concerns are related to fair use, intellectual property, and
possibly deceptive practices because Dumb Starbucks was a business. The parody emphasized its
satirical intent and claimed protection under fair use law, but its use of Starbucks branding raised
questions about trademark infringement. The potential harm caused by misleading consumers, as
well as transparency and honesty, are ethical considerations. Dumb Starbucks draws attention to
the relationship that exists between humor, intellectual property rights, and the obligations that
companies have to their business rivals and customers in terms of morality and the law.
Article
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/12/dumb-starbucks-trademark-lawy
er