The real question is how will SBUX react to this... if they start rattling legal sabers, it could be bad. However, if they go along with the joke, then it could be great publicity. I hope they go along with the joke.
Given that this is Comedy Central (owned by Viacom), I'd imagine the idea was run past Starbucks' legal department before it was greenlit. I'd also wager there's a legal agreement governing what CC can and can't do, and even how Starbucks will or won't react.
Oh, I doubt it. This is probably produced by an independent production team for CC. I don't know if CC legal would be notified before the fact of this or just prior to broadcast.
In the OP, they had quoted Starbucks (PR?) saying that they thought "Dumb Starbucks" was misusing their trademarks.
Viacom is all about the money - I'd say there was a non-zero chance that they actually made Starbucks pay to be the subject of the sketch, and Starbucks PR are just playing along.
By using the word "Dumb", it (in theory) becomes a parody. You couldn't call your store "Starbucks", however "Dumb Starbucks" (again, in theory) is a parody and therefore not a copyright violation.
The joke isn't that he's making fun of Starbucks. The joke is that Nathan Fielder (or more accurately, the character he's playing) is so naïve that he thinks that the "Dumb Starbucks" plan will actually work. His character is supposed to be the dryest, least-witty person on the planet. He takes everything seriously, and when he does say something funny, it's funnier because he seemingly doesn't realize it.
This isn't actually relevant (although it's part of their schtick) because parody is not a defense to trademark infringement. Brands typically aren't covered by copyright because they're not substantial enough to qualify as a work.
Great publicity for his show. From the first season, he helps businesses who are failing or struggling to get a ton of business / foot-traffic. Probably a variation for Season 2, which is coming out soon. Looks like it's worked.
It's supposed to be kind of stupid. The guy used to write sketches for Demetri Martin's show to give you a sense of his comedy style. If you don't think it's funny, that's fine, but it's not supposed to be "anti-establishment" or anything of the like.
Fucking lame. Comedy Central provides product placement for fucking Starbucks.
Gee, thanks for the situational advertising. Real funny.
Ever listen to Howard Stern ramble on about some brand name product for an hour and a half while stuck in traffic? This kind of thing isn't an accident. It's deliberately manipulative.
22 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 55.1 ms ] threadIn the OP, they had quoted Starbucks (PR?) saying that they thought "Dumb Starbucks" was misusing their trademarks.
Maybe this'll make them go to their local coffee shop instead, dumb or not! ;-)
If he'd called it "Fourbucks", for instance, that might've been funnier.
If it was funny, it would ruin the joke.
edit: Wait, skimmed the article again.
Nathan for you?
pbtbtbtbtbt
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7208379
Gee, thanks for the situational advertising. Real funny.
Ever listen to Howard Stern ramble on about some brand name product for an hour and a half while stuck in traffic? This kind of thing isn't an accident. It's deliberately manipulative.