Misconception about Starbucks v Starpreya case

Dan Harris cast strong doubt on the impartiality of the Korean Patent Court (a special court for patent and trademark disputes) regarding the recent ruling on Starbuck v Starpreya.

I first concurred with Dan Harris because it seemed clear to me too that Starpreya is a knockout. Today, I took time to look at the opinion of the Court because I wanted to think about whether a claim based on trade dress might be possible on the same case. This is a confession that my concurrence was not based on first hand knowledge of the case.

The opinion told a very different story from what most of the readers of Dan Harris’ blog might have thought the case would have been. I can’t blame Dan Harris or other people (including myself) for misunderstanding the case because the misunderstanding came from the news report bearing green circle symbols of Starbucks and Starpreya. The case was not about the likelihood of confusion between the greeen circle symbol of Starbucks and that of Starpreya. It was about the likelihood of confusion between the word “STARBUCKS” and “STARPREYA.”

The court opinion lists the two trademarks at issue, one being “STARBUCKS” with registration number 415373, the other being “STARPREYA” with registration number 629689.

The court looked at the meaning, shape, and sound of the words in deciding distinctiveness.

Looking at the words without the common component word “star” which does not render distinctiveness, the court found “bucks” and “preya” did not render distinct meaning either.

But the court found the two words are distinct enough because the shapes and sounds are distinct.

I can’t really say whether the decision was right or wrong. It’s just a judgement call. Remind you Korean courts do not have the jury system and judges find facts.

As far as the case was about likelihood of confusion between two words, I don’t think the decision was biased or nationalistic.

Questions still remains why the plaintiff’s lawyer (KCL law firm) did not raise likelihood of confusion between symbol marks or a claim based on trade dress.


4 thoughts on “Misconception about Starbucks v Starpreya case

  1. I agree. Looks like a case of negligence by the plaintiff’s law firm. Wonder if the plaintiff sued…

  2. iplawyer says:

    I heard that Starbucks appealed the case. Korea has a different appeal system. Errors in factual finding can be bases for appeal. So, it is highly likely that the case will be re-tried at appeal.

  3. michael dell says:

    Appears the attornies for the plaintiff broke down the matter into stages as a strategic move to separate out the more important logo issue. The name issue as highlighted on thsi web site is not a slam dunk and easily can be ruled in favor fo the defendent. By separating this matter, now the more important logo matter can be attacked cleanly.

  4. Wow! Thanks for clearing this up. I am always reluctant to write about a case I have not read myself, but I felt I had no choice in this instance because getting this opinion in English would have taken too long and been too expensive (and my Korean is limited to about 100 words ….). I will certainly be looking to see your coverage of this case on appeal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: