Bockin' the System

In keeping with the "Jammy's" propensity to keep our legion of reader informed of no less than the relevant issues of our time, we offer a reprint from our archives in order to bring you up to date on a matter we feel iz second to none in this department(Ruling due by end of the week):
By Greg BarrCorrespondent
Published June 7, 2005GALVESTON — The verdict in a court case between Starbucks Coffee Co. and a Galveston businessman may be summed up in the expression, “What’s in a word,” or perhaps two words, or possibly three.Lawyers representing Starbucks and the entrepreneur who sells his microbrew Star Bock Beer at the Old Quarter Acoustic Café presented their arguments Monday in the two-year old trademark dispute before Judge Samuel Kent in U.S. District Court.In essence, Starbucks wants bar owner Rex Bell to cease and desist using his trademark, claiming it has caused confusion in the marketplace and threatens the integrity of the widely known Starbucks brand.John Egbert, Bell’s Houston attorney, filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in March 2004, asking Starbucks to prove its infringement case by moving the dispute from the trademark office to federal court. He says Starbucks is a monolithic corporation trampling on the rights of a small businessman whose use of the Starbock Beer trademark is no threat to the coffee company.Kent said he will issue his ruling by Aug. 19.Bell was the only witness called to the stand by his attorney. Starbucks, the defendants, brought in a company executive to explain the history and reach of its existing trademarks. In the afternoon, Starbucks introduced its expert witness, a University of Houston marketing professor.The desk of John Rawls, Starbucks’ Los Angeles-based attorney, was strewn with samples of Starbucks products used as props during the trial. A bottle of Starbucks coffee liqueur — a new product introduced in Texas in 2004 — was introduced as evidence and handed over to the court.In his opening statement, Rawls said his billion-dollar client was not the aggressor in the case, and claimed that Bell was deliberately using media exposure to help sell his beer. He claimed that Bell was trying to “generate a buzz” for his beer by capitalizing on its similarity to Starbucks’ brand.The most common testimony by both sides was continual reference to Bell’s trademark and how the other side was or was not interpreting the trademark. Bell’s original trademark application to the U.S. Trademark Office in 2003 was for the name “Starbock Beer.” In his logo on T-shirts and Web site, he uses the words “Star Bock Beer.”Edward Harris, a University of Houston professor, who was on the stand for 90 minutes, was paid $350 an hour by Starbucks in April to oversee a national online survey of 450 consumers. Respondents were asked about a new kind of beer, and what other names came to mind when they saw the word. One third of respondents were told the new beer was called “Sunbock,” one-third “Starbock” and the other third, “Star Bock.”Fifty-eight percent of respondents, for example, believed the name “Starbock” reminded them of Starbucks. Harris said that amounts to an “appreciable likelihood of confusion.”But under cross-examination, Harris conceded that in conducting the survey, he did not use the full name of Bell’s proposed trademark, “Starbock Beer,” which Bell’s attorney claims would have significantly altered the survey results.“These trademarks are construed as the whole, like Starbucks Coffee or Pizza Hut or Dunkin’ Donuts,” said Egbert, after the trial concluded. “You wouldn’t say on a survey that there’s a new pizza place opening up and it’s called Hut. You have to use the entire mark, and that means whether or not it uses a descriptive term (such as beer) within the mark or not.”Starbucks’ attorney also made reference to the Starbock/Star Bock issue as the trial concluded, citing earlier testimony by Bell at a deposition in 2004, in which he quoted Bell as saying he intended to use the one-word version in his logo sometime in the future.As usual, Judge Kent added his own flair to the proceedings, which, during the long and drawn out technical testimony was like an occasional and humorous jolt of caffeine.“If this case can be distilled to its essence,” Kent said with a smile after opening arguments were concluded, “We’ll be seeing which ‘Star’ will remain in the Lone Star State.”
Note: Intrepid reporter Stevo, fired off a tip to da "Drudge" (see "Links") to keep the masses updated on this LANDMARK ruling....."JOE SIX-PACK: UNITE!!!!!"