Starbucks vs. Charbucks

1. Consider this dispute from a cost-benefit perspective. What was the return on Starbuck's investment to pursue Black Bear for trademark infringement? Even if Black Bear's defense was covered by insurance, did the investment of time by the Clarks yield a sufficient return? 2. Starbucks invests substantial resources in its theme of being a responsible company. On its website, the company announces, "We've always believed that business can -- and should -- have a positive impact on the communities they serve." How does that statement square with its strategy in the Charbucks litigation? Is there any ethical conflict between a company's stated objective to be a good corporate neighbor and its obligation to its stakeholders to protect its intellectual property? 3. Consider Starbucks's litigation strategy. When it used legal maneuvering to attempt to get Zurich to withdraw, was that ethical? Was it a legitimate, hard-nosed business practice, or did Starbucks use its resources in an attempt to force Black Bear into settlement? 4. Think of several names and a mark/logo that Black Bear could have used for dark-roasted coffee beans instead of Charbucks.