In February, the Los Feliz neighborhood of Los Angeles, CA found itself at the center of national media attention when a new local business by the name of “Dumb Starbucks Coffee” opened its doors to the public. Patrons waited in line for hours to purchase a cup of coffee from this “parody coffee shop,” which is not affiliated with Starbucks but uses the name and logo of Starbucks, and is “nearly identical to a typical Starbucks location.” Before being shut down by LA County health inspectors for operating without a valid permit, the shop caught the attention of Starbucks, which stated in an email that the company “appreciates the humor” but would be “evaluating next steps” to ensure that the new shop could not use its name.
“Dumb Starbucks” claims it is not a regular coffee shop, but rather an “art gallery”, and that the coffee it sells (which received mixed reviews from patrons) is “actually the art.” But what difference does this proclamation of artistic purpose make to Starbucks’ contention with the shop’s use of its protected trademark? The answer is that US trademark law provides a fair use exception to trademark infringement/dilution. Under this exception, it is legal to use a famous mark if such use is done in connection with “identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner.” “Dumb Starbucks” claims it is living and breathing the exercise of that fair use exception, considering itself “a work of parody art.”
There can be some social benefit derived from allowing such parody and commentary, which is likely why the exception was carved out in the first place. Though many would easily write “Dumb Starbucks” off as going too far to be considered a parody within the meaning of the fair use exception, it could be argued that the shop is providing “a legitimate political statement about consumerism”, or just that it’s mocking “Starbucks culture” and brand obsession in today’s world. However, the issue in this particular situation may soon be moot anyway because, as previously mentioned, the shop is not currently operating, and additionally, a Starbucks spokeswoman has stated that the company handles the majority of its trademark disputes informally.
If “Dumb Starbucks” were to find its way into a court room over this conflict, it doesn’t seem likely that its parody defense would pass muster, as by its own admission in the FAQ posted on its premises, the shop was “simply using [Starbuck’s] name and logo for marketing purposes . . . .” In fact, the man behind “Dumb Starbucks” has revealed himself to be Nathan Fielder, a comedian who was planning to use footage of this stunt for his television show. These revelations detract from the credibility of the store’s claim that it is “technically “making fun” of Starbucks and is considered parody art. The case law on fair use exceptions does not lend any solid answer to this inquiry, as there are no hard lines used by the courts to determine when the defense will succeed, and similar situations have led to different results. What is clear from the case law is that parody is “not an automatic defense,” and if this matter somehow finds its way into court, “Dumb Starbucks” will have to do more than just toss around the right words.