In February 2014, Fielder`s work attracted attention not only from the media world, but also from the legal community. To help a struggling coffee shop owner in Los Angeles, Fielder suggests renaming the store “Dumb Starbucks.” The concept? The store would look exactly like a real Starbucks, except that each item was preceded by the word “stupid”, from “silent espresso” and “mute tea” to the “stupid Nora Jones” CDs offered. While the plan managed to mobilize huge crowds who came to see the store and have a coffee, much of the episode was devoted to Fielder getting around the obvious legal issue of violating the real Starbucks brand. To do this, Fielder explained that he was allowed to use the Starbucks trademark because he parodied Starbucks. Although Starbucks never decided to sue, much has been written about whether Dumb could actually win Starbucks in court. The premise of Fielder`s Comedy Central show “Nathan for You” is that it gives terrible advice to small businesses. Whether the legal analysis in Dumb Starbucks` FAQ is right or wrong has become irrelevant. If the advice was correct (that fair use protected the “store” as a parody), then Fielder could act as a “dumb Starbucks” without infringing intellectual property. If the analysis was wrong, well, that`s just more of his terrible advice. Regardless, Dumb Starbucks had to be legally fair because Fielder was mocking Starbucks, which has a clever IP team. “We`re an art gallery, and the coffee we sell is considered art, and art galleries don`t need health permits,” he told Jimmy Kimmel on Tuesday night.
Unfortunately, the long-awaited crushing of the lawyer never came. Instead, Starbucks said yes, it appreciates humor, but Dumb Starbucks “can`t use our name.” Of course, it would have been one of the biggest trolls in history if Starbucks had actually taken the bait and filed a lawsuit against this comedian. But no one seemed worried that long anyway. “My wife and I walked by,” said one Los Angeles city councilor, “and then we went to a real Starbucks and grabbed our chai slats.” Everyone loved Dumb Starbucks Coffee, which opened last weekend in my neighborhood. Hipsters came in droves to take selfies in front of the Dumb Starbucks logo. Tourists traveled from Los Angeles` West Side to take photos in front of hipsters. Social media liked to say how stupid these first two groups of people were. Blame the man, the Yelpers said. We love the real Starbucks, but yes, stick it to the man! My contribution to this “event” as a Los Feliz resident and former Starbucks attorney was convincing stupid Starbucks customers to roll the line on the sidewalk rather than the parking lot.
Fielder`s main legal argument, however, was that he was protected from claims of infringement or dilution under the doctrine of parody. According to the FAQ, “By adding the word `stupid`, we are technically mocking Starbucks, allowing us to use their trademarks under a law known as `fair use.` Fair use is a doctrine that allows the use of copyrighted material in a parody work without the permission of the rights holder. While it`s true that parody is a possible defense against injury and dilution, it`s unclear whether adding the word “stupid” to everything in the store would solve Fielder`s potential legal problems. As some practitioners have pointed out, the courts have not reached a consensus in analyzing what exactly is considered a legal travesty, but some features have generally been considered non-offensive. First of all, the use of the trademark must actually mock the trademark owner. Second, if the use of the mark is for non-commercial purposes, it is more likely to be considered a parody. Finally, the use of the mark should not consist of an unnecessarily scandalous change of the mark. So, would it be enough to add the word “stupid,” as Fielder claimed? Initially, it was unclear who was responsible for “Dumb Starbucks,” which drew long lines when it opened to serve stupid but real free drinks, or whether it would survive a court challenge. Elias Zacklin is the owner of The Helio Cafe, a small café in Los Feliz, Los Angeles that customers miss.
[5] Fielder meets with Zacklin to discuss how he can compete with the big coffee chains. His idea is that the parody law allows fair use of a company`s logos and branding that should attract its customers. He suggests changing Helio`s name to a parody of Starbucks called “Dumb Starbucks”. [5] Fielder met with attorney Peter J. Marx, who tells him that legality is not yet valid, as individuals might confuse Dumb Starbucks with the famous company, unless Fielder has established himself as a parody artist. In a twist, Fielder reveals that he made Marx sign a release form making him liable for any legal damage the stunt might cause. [5] Marx refused to return the contract to Fielder, but Fielder confirmed that they had video footage of him signing the contract, which would stand up in court. Zacklin and Fielder began writing parodies of popular songs to perform at an open mic party. Fielder also opened an art gallery with visual art that poked fun at pop culture, continuing his quest to become a parody artist.[4] On the other hand, if Nathan were here, he might tell me that I read too much. What should I say? I`m as stupid as the next guy. Once Dumb Starbucks takes off, the hype is fuzzy. It`s a delight, but my favorite clip shows a gullible Fox News “legal analyst” explaining the basis of U.S.law for the store`s existence. This is despite the fact that the legal argument for running Dumb Starbucks as a real business is dubious at best – Peter Marks essentially tells Nathan. Any decent legal analyst would rush to point out that this is a crazy fringe interpretation of the parody law. Instead, this cable news anchor is making Nathan`s case on his behalf because boring facts matter less than his need and the media`s need to show that they “get it.” The twist is that while Mark advises Nathan on the best way to deceive the audience, Nathan has already deceived him. Nathan reveals that Marks` appearance form, which he signed before the interview, contains a clause making Marks liable for any legal damage Nathan suffers in his quest for stupid Starbucks.
