Starbucks Is Threatening to Sue the Starbucks Union for Using 'Starbucks'

Starbucks is threatening to sue Starbucks Workers United, the union representing workers for the coffee chain, for trademark infringement. 

A letter sent to the president of Workers United last week demanded that the union “immediately cease and desist” from using the company’s name and logo or it would “seek all appropriate legal relief, including without limitation monetary damages."

The demand came after various branches of Starbucks Workers United expressed “solidarity with Palestine” in the Israel-Hamas war in since-deleted social media posts—Starbucks issued a statement in response that it “unequivocally condemn[s] these acts of terrorism, hate and violence,” and disagreed with the stance expressed in the posts. 

Its legal counsel then sent the international president of Workers United Lynne Fox a letter, seen by Motherboard, which referenced a call for a boycott of the coffee chain by Florida Senator Rick Scott and alleged that the union's statements had led to "volatile customers confronting baristas." It stated that the union had made “statements advocating for violence in the Middle East” and must as a result change its name, website address, social media accounts, merchandise, and “all other forms of identification and marketing.” 

In a response letter sent to Starbucks on Tuesday, which was obtained by Motherboard, Fox wrote that the company had failed to “identify any such statement” in its letter. Fox noted that Workers United is affiliated with SEIU, whose international president wrote in a post on X that, “The violence in Israel and Palestine is unconscionable. @SEIU stands with all who are suffering, while strongly condemning anti-Semitism, Islamophobia & hate in all forms.”

“Starbucks is seeking to exploit the ongoing tragedy in the Middle East to bolster the company’s anti-union campaign,” Fox’s letter reads. “Your letter asserts frivolous legal claims, while falsely implying that the union supports terrorism.” The National Labor Relations Board has found in numerous cases that Starbucks has violated labor law by firing union workers or offering benefits exclusively to non-union workers.

“I think Starbucks is trying to weaponize conflict in the Middle East against workers who are trying to unionize,” said Seth Goldstein, a lawyer at Julien, Mirer, Singla and Goldstein, who has worked to represent the union. “I simply do not understand how they can trivialize something that has affected thousands of people.”

Fox’s letter continues that Starbucks also “fails to identify any legal cause of action that the Company plans to pursue. You do not cite a single statute or legal opinion. Nevertheless, I gather that you are threatening a lawsuit for trademark infringement.” 

Other companies facing union negotiations have also sued their unions for trademark infringement. A lawsuit by Medieval Times against its union was dismissed earlier this month after a judge found that the union could use “Medieval Times” in its name. Trader Joe’s sued Trader Joe’s United in July for selling merchandise, such as pins and tote bags, that the company argued looked too similar to its own merchandise. The lawsuit demanded that the company be allowed to “recover [the union’s] profits” from selling the merchandise. 

Starbucks' letter claimed that "organizations of employees rarely include the employer’s name in the organization’s name because doing so creates confusion." This isn't necessarily true. The Amazon Labor Union and Alphabet Workers Union are two high-profile examples of unions that use their employers' name in their title, for example.

Goldstein told Motherboard in a phone call at the time that the lawsuit set a “dangerous precedent,” and that “it won’t be long before…Amazon goes after the [Amazon Labor Union] workers.”

Fox wrote in the letter to Starbucks that any trademark infringement claim it filed would be dismissed, because “the public is not likely to believe that SBWU’s purported statements are those of Starbucks Corporation…In the absence of likely confusion, a company cannot force a union to change its name and branding material.” 

“This is another case of companies trying to weaponize trademark law,” Goldstein said. “It’s not about the Middle East—it’s about Starbucks trying to take away their identity.”

When reached for comment, a Starbucks spokesperson directed Motherboard to a statement by chief human resources officer Sara Kelly posted on Tuesday. “The ongoing confusion from this misinformation has sadly led directly to incidents where angry, hurt customers are confronting partners in our stores and sending graphic and violent messages to partners,” Kelly said. “Workers United’s actions risk putting partners from all stores, including both non-union and unionized stores, in harm’s way.” 

Kelly wrote that, because Workers United “rejected” the company’s demand to stop using its name and logo, “Starbucks will file litigation against the union in federal court, and we intend to pursue all legal options in defense of our partners and our company.”  

“Your letter says that Starbucks is concerned about the “safety and well-being” of its workers,” Fox’s letter states. “If so, we suggest that the company bargain in good faith with SBWU regarding the health and safety provisions proposed by the union months ago. Instead, it appears the company seeks to score points by baselessly attacking SBWU and coercing it to abandon its name and logo. But a publicity stunt does not benefit workers, consumers, or anyone suffering from violence around the world.”