In a trademark infringement action by Starbucks Corp. regarding a competitor's use of the name "Charbucks," judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) the district court did not clearly err in finding that the Charbucks Marks were minimally similar to the Starbucks Marks; 2) the Charbucks line of coffee was marketed as a product of very high quality -- as Starbucks also purported its coffee to be -- which was inconsistent with the concept of tarnishment. However, the judgment is vacated in part where the district court needed to conduct further proceedings on the issue of whether Starbucks demonstrated a likelihood of dilution by "blurring" under federal trademark law.
Read Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc., No. 08-3331
Appellate Information
Argued: June 22, 2009
Decided: December 3, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Miner
Counsel
For Appellant:
Mark N. Mutterperl, John C. Rawls and Sarah Silbert, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., New York,
NY
For Appellee:
Christopher Cole and John-Mark Turner, Sheehan, Phinney, Bass + Green, P.A., Manchester, NH
