The Difference Between HaidaBucks and Starbucks.
Looks like they won.
The world's a better place than I thought.
Maybe Mike Rowe can learn a thing or two from them!
talk about a publicity stunt. free advertising.
finally, a major corporate who sees the light and they drop the legal proceeedings!
what that "differences" page doesn't tell you: haidabucks was previously using a sign (in addition to the two currently on their website) on the front of the store that was quite similar to the starbucks logo. when i saw it for the first time, i quickly changed my mind as to who was "right" in this case. that logo was obvious copyright infringement on the part of haidabucks. starbucks most certainly had the legal right to ask them to stop using it. (the similarity of their names, however, i don't believe should have been an issue.)
quote from a letter sent by starbucks lawyers, located at http://haidabuckscafe.com/letters1.htm:
"Specifically, we note from photos on your client's web site that it has removed the signage previously affixed to the front of its café which included elements of similarity with Starbucks registered logo design. We also note that your client does not display the former logo anywhere on its website and, in fact, seems to have adopted a new non-infringing logo."
haidabucks claims this is not true. if so, then my eyes deceived me!
this is a simple case of "things are not what they seem."
I remember seeing this sign as well, if anyone has a picture of it. Please email me.
This thread is closed to new comments. Thanks to everyone who responded.
About + contact
You can follow kottke.org on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Feedly, or RSS.
Hosting provided by