Cannabis marketers frequently adopt parody branding that borrows from consumer marks. The practice raises trademark issues when the resemblance is close enough to create consumer confusion. A lawsuit brought by Starbucks Corporation against the operators of the Starbuds Flowers cannabis truck in New York City provides precedent for how federal courts treat trademark parody in the cannabis industry and shows how consumer survey evidence can be important in disputes of this nature.
Starbucks Corporation and the Starbuds Flowers Truck
Starbucks Corporation is the world’s largest coffee chain, selling coffee, various foods, and related promotional products. Its trademarked logo features a siren, a figure drawn from mythology, as the central design element. The Starbuds Flowers Truck is a mobile cannabis dispensary operating in New York City, legally selling recreational marijuana products. The Starbuds Flowers Truck logo appeared to parody the Starbucks siren logo, depicting a mermaid smoking a rolled marijuana cigarette. While parody is common in cannabis marketing, federal courts do not treat trademark infringement as exempt from scrutiny on the basis of parody if there is a likelihood of consumer confusion.
Starbucks Files Suit: The Allegations and the Court’s Ruling
Starbucks Corporation filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Brandpat, the parent company of the Starbuds Flowers Truck. The complaint alleged infringement of the trademarked Starbucks siren logo and further alleged that the name STARBUDS is phonetically similar to STARBUCKS and likely to cause consumer confusion. Brandpat did not respond to the litigation. U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield subsequently ruled in favor of Starbucks, ordering that all logos and products bearing the Starbuds branding be destroyed and that use of the name be discontinued.
Consumer Surveys in Cannabis Trademark Disputes
Starbucks prevailed without opposition, as Brandpat failed to respond to the suit. However, had the action proceeded to a contested hearing, either party could have introduced consumer survey evidence to address the central legal questions at issue. A likelihood of confusion survey could have measured whether consumers were likely to confuse the Starbuds Flowers Truck brand with Starbucks, or to perceive that Starbucks was affiliated with, sponsored, or endorsed the truck. Given the phonetic similarity between the names and the visual resemblance between the two logos, a survey could have provided empirical consumer evidence bearing directly on the strength of both the infringement and the parody defense claims.
A false advertising survey could also have been relevant, depending on how the Starbuds branding was deployed and the extent of implied associations with Starbucks to consumers. IMS Legal Strategies is an authority in conducting consumer surveys in trademark and false advertising matters arising in the cannabis industry. Contact our team to discuss litigation survey needs in trademark infringement actions, including those involving parody branding disputes.
