Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1 - charagrin (02/10/2014) [-]
Yeah. That's not how parody law works against the system and business practise of a franchised for profit location. They will be sued under the table within the month. Good idea though.
#15 to #1 - bendertherobo (02/10/2014) [-]
Actually it is completely legal, they are using the picture and names and what not, which is trademarked, but they aren't making profit off of that, they arent selling the logo or name, so they aren't profiting off of it, it'd be hard if not definitively impossible to prove that customers are only going there because it's called that or looks like starbucks, so they can't do anything about it.
User avatar #16 to #15 - charagrin (02/10/2014) [-]
But they admit what they are doing right in the introductive letter. I am sure Multi-million dollar company Starbucks has more than a few lawyers to crush it. Even if Dumb Starbucks has a good legal team and a deep pocket to pay them, I doubt they would win.
#21 to #16 - ainise (02/10/2014) [-]
Law doesn't quite work like that. If you have a rock solid case, it doesn't really matter if you pay your lawyers a billion dollars - you can't win it.

There's nothing to crush here. Under fair use, they are completely legal. If starbucks looked to sue, they could counter sue for court costs and time lost, coming out much, much richer. In no way does starbucks come out ahead.
User avatar #22 to #21 - charagrin (02/10/2014) [-]
Yes, because the American legal system is based on "law" and not who has the most money. That's how the system works for mega-corporations. look at Apple, they won against Samsung and patented rounded corners on phones. because they threw more money at the problem.
User avatar #55 to #22 - roflsaucer (02/10/2014) [-]
Nowthat'swhaticalledgy.png
#27 to #22 - ihateemo (02/10/2014) [-]
so you are saying apple could sue kroger for selling apples?

I mean they have more money why the **** not? They couldn't lose because thats how the system works.

User avatar #28 to #27 - charagrin (02/10/2014) [-]
You are taking one thing and trying to make it another. Calm the **** down, why are you so upset about 2 companies that don't even know you exist? The fact is this company will lose a lawsuit. Let time be the judge of which of us is right.
#29 to #28 - ihateemo (02/10/2014) [-]
Whether the companies know I exist or not is completely irrelevant.

You said any company can sue anyone for anything if they have more money. Do you revoke that statement?
User avatar #35 to #29 - charagrin (02/10/2014) [-]
I never said "any company can sue anyone for anything", you are just angry for some random reason and are putting words in my mouth. I said 'Thats how the system works for Mega-Corporations." I don't give half a flying **** what you think, even the most basic of google searches can pull up thousands of examples of large companies suing smaller ones for the most frivolous of reasons.

Heck, there are even Federal guidelines that allow a large company to do so pretty much at will. Just look at Patent trolls. (I know a patent and a trademark are not the same thing, it's called an example. Get a dictionary.)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
#37 to #35 - ihateemo (02/10/2014) [-]
You really should learn to talk to people without coming off as so passive aggressive. I am not even going to try and talk to you about this if you are so immature that you just spew off the same thing every statement while going off track from your original statement.

User avatar #40 to #37 - charagrin (02/10/2014) [-]
I am done burning brain cells talking to you, especially over something considered common knowledge. For anyone reading this, do a simple search for "fair use" lawsuits, and see who always wins. (hint:It's not the little guy.)
#41 to #40 - ihateemo (02/10/2014) [-]
ignorace is bliss.
User avatar #47 to #41 - charagrin (02/10/2014) [-]
I guess so, we will see who is right. If "Dumb Starbucks" changes even one thing to avoid the lawsuit, or has to cede to a lawsuit or it's demands at all(beyond attending one if required of course), I was right. Otherwise you will be correct. Lets see what time holds for us.
#17 to #16 - bendertherobo (02/10/2014) [-]
Eh to be honest, considering how popular StarBucks is, I doubt they would even bother, they'd probably spend more money shutting them down then they would lose by letting them keep going. but I dunno, I'm not into all that law mumbo-jumbo, the Game Grumps just explained it all in the intro to StarBomb so i have a bit of knowhow haha.
 Friends (0)