Starbucks Joins The List Of Companies Using Trademark Law To Bully Its Own Union
from the not-how-that-works dept
The trend continues. One of the things we’ve noticed more frequently as of late has been larger companies attempting to use trademark law as some kind of cudgel against employee unions. This has taken several forms, from Wal-Mart attempting to shut down a union website for accurately calling itself a union of Wal-Mart employees, Medieval Times trying to shutter a website and merch for its performers’ union for the same reason, and Trader Joes attacking its employees’ union ostensibly for similar reasons, but really it just wanted to cause as much trouble and pain for the union as possible.
This case is admittedly different and, arguably, worse. In this case, Starbucks has threatened Starbucks Workers United with a trademark lawsuit principally, it appears, because the union started tweeting things the company doesn’t like about Gaza.
Starbucks is threatening to sue Starbucks Workers United, the union that represents employees of the coffee conglomerate, for trademark infringement following the union’s ‘Solidarity with Palestine!’ tweet.
Last week, a letter was sent to the president of the union demanding that the union ‘immediately cease and desist’ from using the company’s name and logo or the company will pursue legal action ‘including without limitation monetary damages.’
The tweet has since been deleted, but it read “Solidarity with Palestine!” and was sent in the midst of Israel’s response to a horrific terror attack launched by Hamas out of the Gaza Strip. Now, there is a lot to discuss about the history leading up to this conflict, actions that have been taken on both sides of the equation here, and all the rest. But this is not the forum for that discussion. Nor is the union’s opinion on matters of geo-politics in any way trespassing into the realm of trademark law. In other words, the union’s activities don’t suddenly become trademark infringement simply because it tweeted out something Starbucks doesn’t like, even if you don’t like it either.
It appears the lawyers for Starbucks don’t understand that.
The lawyers wrote that because the union had made ‘statements advocating for violence in the Middle East,’ they must change their name, website address, social media accounts, merchandise, and anything else the features their logo.
The union president Lynne Fox wrote in a response that the company had not managed to ‘identify any such statement.’ She added that Starbucks Workers United is affiliated with SEIU, the president of which issued a statement that read:
‘The violence in Israel and Palestine is unconscionable. @SEIU stands with all who are suffering, while strongly condemning anti-Semitism, Islamophobia & hate in all forms.’
This is a complete non-starter and I’ll be surprised if any lawsuit is actually filed. That being said, executives at the company are insisting a lawsuit will be filed in federal court over all of this. If it does, it will clearly be a lawsuit designed to stop the speech rights of the union through punitive action.
And all the same arguments as to why the union is not infringing simply by calling itself a union for laborers of the company, nor is the branding it chose for itself that has some similarity to the corporate branding, because nobody will be mislead or confused as to the affiliation of a big company and the union it desperately wishes didn’t exist.
Filed Under: bullying, free speech, gaza, hamas, israel, palestine, trademark, unions
Companies: starbucks, starbucks workers united
Comments on “Starbucks Joins The List Of Companies Using Trademark Law To Bully Its Own Union”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The action by Starbucks is designed to damage the reputation of the union, correctly labeling them as an organization that supports literal baby-killers. Whether the trademark suit will be filed or can be won is irrelevant.
Re:
The tweet said “Solidarity with Palestine”, not “Solidarity with Hamas”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
The tweet contained a photo of one of Hamas’s bulldozers going through the border fence into Israel, so, yes, the union was speaking in support of literal baby-killers. In any case, the desire of Starbucks to damage the reputation of the union does not rest on parsing the nuances of the union’s statement.
It is funny, though, how the woke ideology of being extraordinarily sensitive to the use of language in order to avoid microaggressions seems to go away once piles of Jewish corpses are available to admire. The sort of people who like to screech “Nazi!” at me when I point out that people can only ever be the sex of their bodies seem to have no problem being actual Nazis when it comes to murdering Jews.
Wokeness is poison. Wokeness is death.
Re: Re: Re:
Speaking in slogans is always a good sign.
Re: Re: Re:
I assume the babies killed by IDF bombings and as a result of Israel’s blockade of Gaza don’t count because reasons.
Re: Re: Re:2
Why do you assume this?
A life lost is just that, a loss.
It is not a gain, not for anyone.
It is only a loss.
I do not assume anyone is gaining in killing.
Thoughts on lessening losses have been welcome for literal eons…
Re: Re: Re:3
Because, I dunno, being kind, not turning Palestine into a fucking concentration camp, and knowing to cut your losses and admit defeat were ways to prevent such regrettable losses, Hyman.
Those 3 suggestions were not followed by the direct participants of the latest fuckuppery in the Middle East, and as for everyone else? It’s “Kick the Gazan Football season”.
Congrats, you’re the latest competitor. And for a disgusting cause, too.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Ah, to my complete lack of surprise, TechDirt commenters are also pleased as punch with the literal baby killers.
Re: Re: Re:5
Hyman.
Unlike you, I am NOT pleased at all.
Israel deserves to exist, as does Palestine. With all the attendant responsibilities and benefits.
Not pleased with Hamas and it’s ridiculous war propped up by anti-US and anti-Israel forces (Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, and the rest of the Middle East) since… 1948, and I am very unhappy with every single fucking time Israel does its thing, propped up by the US.
NO BABIES SHOULD BE KILLED, FOR FUCK’S SAKE.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Correct. The babies killed in Gaza are collateral damage. The babies killed in Israel are deliberate targets. There are occasional exceptions when Israel targets homes of selected terrorist leaders and kills their entire families, which, good on them.
The population in Gaza has grown from 1.6m in 2010 to 1.8m now, so if Israel were intent on murdering Palestinian babies the way Palestinians are intent on murdering Jewish babies, they’d be doing a poor job of it.
Re: Re: Re:3
This is both a chilling endorsement of massacres that tick all the regulatory boxes, and obviously untrue. Revenge-bombing, starving, and denying medical and other basic necessities to the entire population of the world’s largest open air prison, where you keep the people whose homes you stole, is fine because it’s all collateral damage.
Re: Re: Re:4
That’s how war works. The terrorists can unconditionally surrender and return the hostages. They can come out from behind their human shields and fight openly; they will will die but their human shields won’t. Or they and their human shields will die. They chose to attack Israel. They don’t get to bamboozle the ref afterwards with calls for a “ceasefire” so that they can re-arm and commit their atrocities again.
If you don’t like to see dead Palestinians, you should stop feeding their fantasies of ever being able to take one inch of Israel by force. Israel isn’t going to be dissuaded from fighting by posts on the internet. They let themselves get complacent and careless and over-reliant on technology, and so suffered one day of hideous violence and loss. How long do you think the Palestinians are going to pay for that one day? They like to hand out candy in celebration when they hear about dead Israelis. They deserve what they will get – Exodus 12:30 – “there was no house where there was not someone dead”.
Re: Re: Re:5
It sure as fuck would be nice if AMERICA HAD NOT TRIED TO SABOTAGE IRAN IN 1953.
Or, you know, AMERICA NOT ALLY WITH SAUDI ARABIA.
One can criticize Israel’s actions AND still feel sympathy for the Palestinians. Oh, and call Abbas a limpdicked shit for letting the extremist elements of his own party take over.
Your callousness is showing. Realize it WILL come to bite you in the ass eventually.
Re: Re: Re:6
History does not come with an undo button, nor can people act in the present with foreknowledge of the future. No country is going to suffer its citizens being slaughtered regardless of what reasons the attackers may profess, and regardless of people on the internet proclaiming their sympathy for the attackers, and regardless of people saying that past choices were poor.
The way to conduct war is with complete callousness. The goal of war is to kill the enemy as unfairly and lopsidedly as possible, treating the deaths of 1000 of theirs as less important than the death of one of ours. One of the reasons America has been failing in its wars is the totally futile effort to win hearts and minds and set up democratic government before the enemy has been thoroughly and brutally destroyed.
Re: Re: Re:7
Sadly, Hyamn, you are honest, I’ll give you that.
Don’t complain when it’s your turn in the mass grave, because I won’t have any sympathy for you.
Re: Re: Re:
Wow, did you make up that last line all on your own?
Re: Re: Re:
Really fucked up for the union to celebrate people breaking out of a concentration camp like that.
Re: Re: Re:
Similarly: We’ve seen how easy it becomes to call for (and enact) the genocide of an entire people based on the heinous actions of extremists who are part of, but not wholly representative of, that group of people.
I condemn the actions of Hamas, full stop. I also condemn the idea of innocent Gazans/Palestinians being hurt or killed by the military might of the Israeli government as revenge for the actions of Hamas. Neither side of this conflict seems to be looking for a way to avoid the coming violence—and that violence will only cause more problems than it will ever solve.
Re: Re:
But this is soooo hard to understaaaannd.
Starbucks Workers United is a union of workers at Starbucks, not Starbucks’s union. Easy mistake to make, Starbucks seems to have done so as well.
Reading the endless accounts of employer mistreating employees I am reminded of many corporate/business slogans and mission statements that claim something like;
“Our employees are our greatest asset”
Whilst thinking about this I realize that having wage slaves is probably their biggest asset and that is very sad commentary for them.
It’s eerie seeing so many massive companies and other institutions just line up to defend the genocide of Gazans at all costs. I guess you can always rely on big business to side with fascism. Hell, even this blog waves it off.
Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
From the river to the sea, Israel will be Arab-free.
Re: Re:
If Netanyahu has his way, clearly.
Side question, should a union vote before a political statement of any kind is made on behalf of its members?
I’m just thinking, how easily could that be implemented? All members receive a tweet (or whatever) and vote yay/nay, and abstention is just not voting in a 12 hour window.
Other than that I don’t see why its any of the Employer’s business whatsoever. They can be in favour of terrorism for all I care, ai bring my own drink in a flask. I’ve never been OK with teenagers and weirdos scratching their butt and then fitting a lid on my drink. Nope.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Anyone is free to comment on anyone else’s statements. In this case, it’s the employer’s business because they want to damage the reputation of the union, who are their antagonists, by correctly demonstrating the union’s support for literal baby-killers. If the union does not want to be known as a supporter of literal baby-killers, they should not support literal baby-killers.
Re: Re:
Actually, it’s your pro-life (pro-lie) buddies who are the real literal baby killers as well as being mother (and other parent) killers. So suck on that, sucker!
Trademark Bullying Usually Works
Is there actually any downside to an employer suing the union for trademark infringement? It’s not like there is a federal anti-Slapp law or anything that could be used to sanction the employer, is there?
So, until we can come up with some kind of punishment for these egregious bullying lawsuits, we can expect them to continue (probably at an accelerated pace).
PS: Somebody, please, please tell me I’m wrong.
Re:
The 9th Circuit allows state anti-SLAPPs to be used. But it won’t help here. The Starbucks Union was formed in New York, 2nd Circuit, which has ruled it won’t accept New York state’s new anti-SLAPP.
Lets do it the old way.
Hire someone to Work int he union and slowly take it over or corrupt it, from INSIDE.
Or they become President, and sabotage Everything.
Viva retail clerks Union.
Starbucks Joins The List Of Companies Using Trademark Law To Bully Its Own Union
This is a descriptive use of the trademark, which is allowed under the law, but in order to counter future lawsuits, maybe the Union could call itself Starbullies Workers Union or Starbuccaneers (to reflect the company’s past tax evasion) Workers Union instead, and if Starbucks doesn’t like whichever option their workers’ union goes with, tough titty doo-dah because there’s not even the illusion of standing under trademark law.
You just don’t get it.
Very rare is there trademark conflict between companies and (anti-)labour unions.
Pipe fitters don’t call them selves workers of shamrock plumbing union. Food store employees don’t call themselves Albertson’s employees union.
Hundreds of thousands of these groups exist. The only ones who make news like this are ones who are intentionally hostile to the company they are attached to.
Given that these unions are bullying potential workers as much as the company they stand against, with forced membership and removal of right to chosen representation… I have no tears for them.
Re:
The American conservative’s inability to distinguish solidarity from oppression is so fucking funny
Re: Re:
Unions take away the right of personal choice for representation. Unions remove the right of personal negotiation. Unions force membership, and demand payment for forced membership.
Unions raise costs, disrupt personnel commerce, bully employees and workers alike. I’ve worked for one union company and never again. The starting rate was more than I asked for, sure. But after the mandatory theft (dues) from my pay the starting rate was less than I wanted. They don’t explain the lower wage when they force you to sign with the union. They went on strike, I tried to go to work.
I was harassed non stop by phone, people at the door, letters in the mailbox!
Re: Re:
Solidarity? They have no solidarity with the company the employees workfor. They are using a trademark they have no right to for commercial gain.
I have to laugh at the hypocrisy of progressives. You scream and shout about random fees on a cable bill but not the fact that most unions don’t Inform you of how much they will steal from your hard earned paycheques?
How is being forced to pay for opposing representation that I do not agree with any different than being forced to pay sports fees for sports I will never watch???!!’