NEW DELHI: An Indian coffee shop chain rhyming with Starbucks and with a similar logo has agreed to change its name after being sued by the US giant, the Indian firm said Friday.
Starbucks, which entered the vast Indian market in 2012 and now has 125 outlets, began legal proceedings against “SardarBuksh,” which has 25 shops in New Delhi, in July.
“Our name rhymed with Starbucks which is why the court has ruled (on Thursday) in their favor,” Sanmeet Singh Kalra, co-founder of SardarBuksh, told AFP.
His company has agreed to change the name to the not-particularly-different “Sardarji-Bakhsh” within two months.
But Kalra said that his logo, which like Starbuck’s is a circle of green and black with a figure at the center — albeit a man in a turban and not a mermaid — will not change.
Harish Bijoor, a branding consultant, said that Indian firms often use names that are similar to well-known multinational brands.
“Such imitators have limited ambition and they enjoy their moment of limelight of having ambushed an iconic brand in India,” Bijoor told AFP.
In 2015, US fast food giant Burger King reportedly took a street vendor in the northern city of Ludhiana to court for using the name “Mr Singh Burger King.”
Indian chain “Burger Singh” has been left alone, however, opening 20 outlets in India with plans to expand into the British market, according to media reports.
“Singh” is a commonly used last name in India’s Hindu and Sikh communities.
Sued by Starbucks, Indian coffee chain changes name
Sued by Starbucks, Indian coffee chain changes name
- An Indian coffee shop chain rhyming with Starbucks and with a similar logo has agreed to change its name after being sued by the US giant
- Starbucks, which entered the vast Indian market in 2012 and now has 125 outlets, began legal proceedings against “SardarBuksh,”
Reddit files lawsuit against Australia’s social media ban
SYDNEY: Message board website Reddit on Friday filed a lawsuit asking the High Court to overturn Australia’s social media ban for people under 16 as well as its inclusion in it, calling the law an infringement of free political expression.
The US-listed firm, which has operations in Australia, called the ban “invalid on the ground that it infringes the implied freedom of political communication,” in a court filing signed by its lawyers, Perry Herzfeld and Jackson Wherrett.
The filing named the Commonwealth of Australia and Communications Minister Anika Wells as defendants. A spokesperson for Wells was not immediately available for comment, although the Australian government has said it is ready to fight any legal challenges to the law.
Two days earlier, Australia went live with the world’s first legally enforced age minimum to access social media. Reddit and nine other platforms, including Meta’s Instagram, Alphabet’s YouTube and TikTok campaigned against the measure for more than a year before ultimately saying they would comply.
The platforms are required to bar underage users or face a fine of up to A$49.5 million , while underage users and their caregivers do not face punishment. Platforms say they are using measures like age inference, based on a person’s online activity, and age estimation, based on a selfie, to follow the rule.
But the law “carries some serious privacy and political expression issues for everyone on the Internet,” Reddit said in a statement published alongside its court filing. “So, we are filing an application to have the law reviewed.” The lawsuit makes a second High Court challenge to the ban. Last month, two teenagers backed by an Australian libertarian state lawmaker filed a challenge which has a hearing in February.
Reddit has no plans to join other parties challenging the ban, a person familiar with the situation said.
