| Author |
Message |
scudderbug
Talker
Joined: July 30, 2005
Posts: 77
|
 Posted:
Jan 02, 2006 - 04:35 PM |
 
|
| Post subject: China Court Sides With Starbucks [AP] |
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?feed=AP& Date=20060101&ID=5385483
January 01, 2006 11:36 PM ET
Report: China Court Sides With Starbucks
BEIJING (AP) - A Chinese court has sided with the Starbucks coffee house chain in its battle with a Shanghai rival over their use of the same Chinese name, a news report said.
The dispute in China's booming market for gourmet coffee highlights the country's struggle to mediate trademark disputes, a new concept for the communist legal system.
A Shanghai court ordered Shanghai Xingbake to stop using the name Xingbake, the name used in Chinese by Starbucks Corp., the Shanghai Daily newspaper reported. Xing, pronounced "shing," means star in Chinese, and bake, or "bah kuh," sounds like bucks.
The ruling Saturday by the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court also ordered Shanghai Xingbake to pay Starbucks 500,000 yuan (US$62,000; euro50,000) in damages, the newspaper said.
Starbucks opened its first cafe in China in 1999. It later caused a stir by adding outlets in Beijing's imperial palace and at the Great Wall, north of the Chinese capital.
Foreign rivals and Chinese upstarts have jumped into the market to compete for well-heeled customers who pay up to 50 yuan (US$6; euro5) for a cup of coffee -- more than the average Chinese worker makes in a day.
Starbucks sued Shanghai Xingbake in 2003.
The Shanghai coffee house argued that its name was valid because it was registered in 2000, before Starbucks applied for its own Chinese trademark.
Starbucks rejected that, saying its name and mermaid trademark were registered in China beginning in 1996.
The Shanghai Daily report Sunday said the Starbucks ruling was the first of its kind under a 2001 Chinese law meant to protect well-known international trademarks.
Foreign companies have complained for years that the Chinese government is failing to stamp out piracy of copyrighted or trademarked goods such as movies or designer clothes.
More recently, Chinese companies have begun to turn to the courts to protect their own names. A Shanghai soft drink maker, Yaqing Industry and Trade Co., lost a lawsuit last January against The Coca Cola Co. and its local bottler over the name of a new beverage.
Yaqing claimed the characters for Coke's Qoo fruit drink -- "Ku-er" in Chinese -- were too close to those of Yaqing's Kuhai drink. But a Shanghai court ruled that the two names were different enough that consumers wouldn't confuse them. |
|
|
|
|
pixelpunter
StreetBeater
Joined: Sep 15, 2005
Posts: 2199
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2006 - 09:57 PM |
|
|
I don't know whether I should laugh or cry. Whatever happened to competitive marketplaces that kept prices low to the advantage of the consumer. Admittedly Xingbake is benefitting from using the Starbucks name, but allowing companies like Starbucks to get a monopoly on the market isn't benefitting me. |
_________________
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it. |
|
|
|
|
yu888
Board Deity
Joined: Jan 25, 2003
Posts: 17972
Location: ZhongShanParkArea SH
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2006 - 02:26 PM |
|
|
It is not so much about a monolpoly as it is about intellectual property. Starbucks has invested money to develop their brand and image and reputation. And while I don't like their business practices, I must respct that they have developed a good business model that works for them in many markets. Someone who blatantly tries to capitalize off of this without too much originality should be forced to rethink their position. My only laugh about this was the settlement amount, but then again, its not like Chinese courts to put a local company out of business. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
Forum FAQ
Search
Preferences
Watched Topics
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
