TUFTONBORO, N.H. — A small New Hampshire coffee producer that operates out of a barn has prevailed in a trademark-infringement case brought by Starbucks over a blend called “Charbucks.”
“We’re just a mom-and-pop little roastery,” said Annie Clark, who with her husband, Jim, owns Black Bear Micro Roastery in Tuftonboro.
They were sued in 2001 in federal district court in New York by Seattle-based Starbucks, which alleged Black Bear’s use of the name “Charbucks” infringed, blurred and tarnished its famous trademarks.
Starbucks appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after Black Bear prevailed in district court. The appeals court agreed with the district court in a decision Friday, saying Starbucks didn’t prove its case.
- Seattle police officer faces firing over arrest of man carrying a golf club
- Mariners’ triple play hadn’t been seen since 1955
- 5 things you should know about Microsoft’s Windows 10
- True-crime author Ann Rule dies at age 83
- Before getting the ax, Steve Sandmeyer show was scraping by
Most Read Stories
Charbucks, introduced in 1997, is Black Bear’s darkest roast.
The appeals court noted that “one of the reasons Black Bear used the term ‘Charbucks’ was the public perception that Starbucks roasted its beans unusually darkly.”
But it agreed with the lower court in finding minimal similarity and weak evidence of actual association between the brands.
“Their sales haven’t been hurt,” Clark said of Starbucks. “Their growth hasn’t been hurt.”
Starbucks respects but disagrees with the court’s decision, company spokesman Zack Hutson said. “We only filed the suit after a prolonged but unsuccessful attempt to enlist Black Bear’s cooperation and to resolve this matter without litigation,” Hutson said Monday.
Starbucks is a responsible trademark owner and was asking only for an injunction against the use of “Charbucks,” he said. The case did not involve monetary damages.
Starbucks can ask for a rare hearing before the full appeals court. They also can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Hutson didn’t indicate whether Starbucks would proceed further.