Starbucks: Not Evil
I am not a big fan of Starbucks. It’s not merely that I’m anti-trendy, but it just isn’t my idea of a nice coffee shop. (My idea of coffee doesn’t encompass “twenty ounces served in a paper cup with a plastic lid,” unless I’m stopping at a gas station on the Interstate.) But they give benefits to part-time employees, and as far as I have ever heard, the company conducts itself in a decent manner uncharacteristic of many greedy megacorporations. The latest evidence comes from AP / Yahoo:
A Starbucks in Washington, DC.
ASTORIA, Ore. – A judge has told Sam Buck that she can’t call her coffee shop Sambuck’s. The judge ruled the name violated the trademark of coffee giant Starbucks.
But there is a silver lining for the small business owner. Buck won’t have to pay Starbucks’ legal fees, [although Starbucks is entitled to claim legal fees.]
“It’s not about David and Goliath,” said May Kulthol, manager of media relations for Starbucks Coffee. “We try to deal with these types of situations amicably and to come to a good conclusion for both parties. The defendant is not required to pay legal fees nor did we seek damages from her.”
I had earlier read about this case, that Starbucks offered $500 up front to compensate the small business for the hassle of changing their name. Starbucks? Not evil. Maybe they can partner with Google or something. Or at least set an example for the Walmarts and the Sonys.