Question

1. Why is the giant Starbucks Corporation concerned about the activities of a very small coffee shop in Los Angeles?

2.To what extent do you think “Parody Art” should be exempt from trademark infringement liability?

Answer 1

1. Because the small coffee shop named "Dumb Starbucks coffee" in Los Angeles could be categorised as a form of parody art(i.e. as art is bought from an art gallery, coffee from that small shop is analogous). In this way, since Parody is a protected form of First amendment speech, the shop owners are exempted from trademark infringement liabilities and hence Starbucks have their hands tied legally. But for Starbucks, it's doing negative publicity, that it obviously doesn't want.

2. According to me , parody could be exempted from trademark infringement liability to a point where it doesn't defame or in a way use another company's fame for their own profit.