A couple of weeks back, I captured this image from a t-shirt for sale in Starbucks’ backyard — at a shop in the Pike Place Market area of Seattle:
One of the things it brought to mind for me is the dozen year long trademark dilution case that Starbucks lost, over and over, a few years back, against a New Hampshire coffee roaster, who lawfully continues to sell its Charbucks coffee blend of beans.
It also brings to mind the difficulty of predicting the outcome of a trademark parody defense, especially since the case Tim wrote about earlier this year, highlighting Louis Vuitton’s inability to prevail in the recent My Other Bag case.
Last, at least for now, it also brings to mind the moving target of the legality of marijuana, at least at the state level, especially recognizing that Starbucks’ backyard happens to be a safe haven for doobie lovers.
Back in the day, associating the visual identity of a famous brand owner with an illegal product, was quite helpful in proving up tarnishment type damage, remember the Enjoy Cocaine posters?
Yet, with the ever-changing environment of what is legal and where, at what point will the tarnishment argument become tainted, especially with the apparent growth of First Amendment defense successes in trademark cases?
In the end, given the utter prevalence of Coca-Cola script inspired Enjoy Cocaine t-shirts available for sale online (a substance legal in no state), is the most logical explanation for a famous brand owner’s apparent tolerance best explained by the Wack-a-Mole pest and problem?