Recently, a local café in Pakistan named Sattar Buksh, known for its branding, which resembled that of the global coffee giant Starbucks, has been making headlines for "winning a trademark battle" against the corporate giant. However, the dispute never actually made its way to court.
Starbucks Corporation, a globally recognised coffeehouse chain with thousands of branches worldwide, exists since 1971 and their distinctive green siren logo of the brand is globally recognisable as synonymous with coffee culture. But they have no branch in Pakistan. Sattar Buksh café, on the other hand, has been operational since 2013 in Karachi, Pakistan. The name and logo of the café – a round green logo containing a mustached man in place of Starbucks' mermaid - resembled Starbucks, though the founders contended that it was a satire with cultural elements, with their menu and identity being rather unique. Aside from their phonetic (name wise) and visual resemblance to Starbucks, they were known for their local, relatable, and humorous approach to food.
Google News LinkFor all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Starbucks objecte
 |
d to Sattar Buksh's name and visual similarity to its brand, issuing a cease-and-desist letter to them, citing that such resemblance will likely create confusion among the consumers regarding the origin of the services, dilute its famous trademark's distinctiveness and may potentially tarnish its reputation too. Section 86(3) of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 of Pakistan allows the owner of a well-known trademark to seek restrain by injunction the use of a trademark in Pakistan which, or the essential part of which, is identical with or deceptively similar to their trademark, in relation to identical or similar goods or services, where the use is likely to confuse or where such use causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the well-known trademark
If Sattr Buksh had not changed their logo and made the necessary changes, they could have possibly landed in legal complications, especially since the parody and cultural elements of their defence would hardly be valid under the trademark regime
