We’ve got friends who argue that intellectual property protection in the US has gotten way out control—extended patents, lengthy copyrights, litigation without end. Most days we think the investment in innovation we get as a trade-off for these things make it worth it. Today isn’t one of those days.
Today's big financial news comes straight from the Lone Star State, where financial powerhouse McGraw-Hill (NYSE: MHP - News) has sicced its legal eagles on ... an upstart coffeehouse, of all things. Last week, McGraw-Hill subsidiary Standard & Poor's (S&P) filed a lawsuit in federal court against "Standard & Pours Coffee & Stocks," a Dallas purveyor of java, free copies of The Wall Street Journal, and live CNBC video.In the suit, S&P alleges that Standard & Pours appropriated for itself a name just a bit too close to S&P's own, causing customers to mistake the Texas coffeehouse for a long-lost subsidiary of the real S&P (shades of the 1998 case of Federal Express (NYSE: FDX - News) v. Federal Espresso). For infringing on its trademark, S&P demands the maximum compensation permitted by the U.S. Trademark Act: three times Standard & Pours' profits, and three times any revenue S&P lost when customers sauntered into Standard & Pours, and accidentally bought a cup of coffee when what they really wanted was a credit report. (Doh!)
Tempest in a Coffee Pot [Motley Fool]
Posted by The Itinerant Lawyer , Aug 30, 2006 3:03PM
As I understand it, trademark holders have to take these actions even if they don't have a real issue with a particular use because if they show a history of not taking potentially infringing uses seriously -- demand letters, lawsuits, etc -- it can affect the trademark holder's claim against a later (more serious) infringer.
It's kinda like a cable news journalist and the Jon Benet Ramsey case. He or she can't be seen NOT to be taking every lead seriously or cable viewers will lose faith in the journalist ability to beat future non- news stories to death.
Posted by Mike , Sep 04, 2006 6:03PM
True they have to show they attempted to protect their name but in this case they are going beyond that. They have sued her business to change her coffee shops name (which is SPELLED differently, and in a entirely different INDUSTRY) but are also suing her personally. So not only do they want her name changed, they want this small business OUT OF BUSINESS and the onwer LIVING IN THE STREET and I'm certain they'll want one of her kidneys before it's all over with.
Posted by Julia , Sep 06, 2006 11:11AM
does anyonw think a day will ever come when somebody might walk into the financial giant headquarters in new york city and might simply be confused and order an espresso? This lawsuit is laughable at best.