Why Starbucks Can Stop Local Cafés From Using “Star” or “Bucks” in Their Name
Starbucks is one of the most aggressive trademark enforcers in the world, and its ongoing disputes with small cafés using words like “star,” “bucks,” or similar naming conventions regularly make the news. Many small business owners are surprised when they receive a cease-and-desist letter, believing that changing the spelling, adding a local twist, or operating in a different city is enough to avoid trademark issues. In most cases, it is not.
At the core of these disputes is the concept of likelihood of confusion under U.S. trademark law. A business infringes a trademark when consumers are likely to believe that its goods or services are connected to, sponsored by, or affiliated with the trademark owner. Starbucks owns numerous federal trademark registrations covering not only the word mark STARBUCKS, but also related branding elements used in connection with coffee shops, beverages, and café services. Because these marks are considered famous, Starbucks receives broader protection than an ordinary brand.
Local cafés often assume that using only part of a famous mark, such as “Star Café” or “Urban Bucks Coffee,” avoids infringement. Trademark law does not require identical names for infringement to exist. When a junior business uses a portion of a famous mark in the same industry, courts and the USPTO often find that consumers may assume an association. This risk is even higher when the businesses offer identical services, such as coffee, espresso drinks, or café-style food, and operate in overlapping channels of trade.
Starbucks also benefits from the legal concept of trademark dilution. Dilution protects famous marks from uses that weaken their distinctiveness, even when there may not be direct confusion. A local café using “bucks” in its name may argue that customers know it is not Starbucks, but dilution law focuses on whether repeated third-party use erodes the unique association consumers have with the famous brand. Federal trademark law allows owners of famous marks to stop uses that blur or tarnish their brand, even absent clear confusion.
Another common misconception is that registering a business name or forming an LLC provides trademark rights. State business registrations do not grant trademark protection and do not override federal trademark law. A business can be fully compliant at the state level and still infringe a federally registered trademark. Similarly, adding disclaimers like “not affiliated with Starbucks” does not cure infringement, because trademark law looks at initial consumer perception, not fine print.
These disputes highlight the importance of trademark clearance before adopting a brand name. Words that seem generic or widely used in everyday language can still present serious risk when they are closely associated with a famous brand in a particular industry. A proper clearance search evaluates not only identical marks, but also similar words, shared dominant terms, and overall commercial impression.
For small businesses, the takeaway is clear. Choosing a name that plays off a famous brand may seem clever or harmless, but it can expose the business to costly rebranding, legal fees, and lost goodwill. From a legal standpoint, Starbucks is not overreaching when it enforces these rights. It is doing what trademark owners are required to do to maintain the strength and exclusivity of their marks.
For brand owners at any size, these cases serve as a reminder that trademark law rewards early planning and originality. A distinctive name that stands on its own is not only easier to protect, but far less likely to attract unwanted attention from one of the world’s most powerful trademark enforcement teams. If you are considering a trademark for your business, click here to get started!