Opinion ID: 2443
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Complaint and Trial

Text: After failed negotiations with Black Bear, on July 2, 2001, Starbucks filed a complaint in the District Court, alleging trademark dilution in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(c), 1127; trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); unfair competition in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); trademark dilution in violation of New York Gen. Bus. Law § 360- l ; deceptive acts and business practices and false advertising in violation of New York Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349, 350; and unfair competition in violation of New York common law. [1] A two-day bench trial was held on March 15, 2005, and March 17, 2005. Among the evidence proffered during trial, Starbucks introduced the testimony of Warren J. Mitofsky (Dr. Mitofsky), a scientist in the field of consumer research and polling. His testimony explained the results of his survey, which concluded in part that [t]he number one association of the name `Charbucks' in the minds of consumers is with the brand `Starbucks' ... [and that] [t]he name `Charbucks' creates many negative associations in the mind of the consumer when it comes to describing coffee. Dr. Mitofsky testified that the surveyed sample of persons were designed to be representative of the United States and that he believed a telephone survey of 600 adults in the United States would do a good job of random sampling. Dr. Mitofsky summarized the scope of his survey: Well, if you want to know the reaction to the name Charbucks, then the telephone is perfectly adequate. If you want to measure the reaction or the familiarity with other visual cues, then it's not the right method. On December 22, 2005, the District Court issued an opinion and order ruling in favor of Black Bear and dismissing Starbucks' complaint. Among its findings, the court determined that there was neither actual dilution to establish a violation of the federal trademark laws nor any likelihood of dilution to establish a violation of New York's trademark laws. The court also found that Starbucks failed to prove its trademark infringement and unfair competition claims because there was no likelihood that consumers would confuse the Charbucks Marks for the Starbucks Marks.