In February, comedian Nathan Fielder orchestrated an ambitious publicity stunt—he crudely poked fun at global mega-brand Starbucks. His elaborate prank could have been a costly one. Fielder treated a long queue of fans to his new “café,” “Dumb Starbucks.” The shop mirrored the real Starbucks, except the word “dumb” was affixed to virtually everything in the shop, including the company’s logo, menu items (“Dumb Venti,” “Dumb Chai Latte”), and fake CDs for sale (“Dumb Norah Jones Duets,” “A Dumb Taste of Cuba”).
In the store’s “frequently asked questions” handout, Fielder assured customers that Starbucks was in no way affiliated with “Dumb Starbucks,” and that the latter’s existence was protected by parody law and the fair use doctrine. “Dumb Starbucks” did not actually sell coffee, tea or baked goods. In fact, it sold nothing at all. It did not operate as a legitimate brick-and-mortar business. Rather, it was an “art gallery” and the accompanying stunt was, to some degree, “performance art.” A spokeswoman for Starbucks acknowledged that Fielder’s enterprise was “obviously” not a real Starbucks. While the burden of policing trademark infringement rests on the trademark owner, Starbucks was smart to ignore the bait.
