Starbucks Sues Over 'Shabak' Trademark Near Match

In April 2012, a U.S. coffee chain found itself in a Beijing courtroom—not over espresso ratios or brew methods, but over a name. Starbucks wasn’t suing over a knockoff drink or a copied logo. Instead, the company took China’s Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) to court to stop another firm from registering a name startlingly close to its own: 'Shabak,' a virtual castle in an online game.

The short answer? Starbucks isn’t asking for money. It just wants to block Shanda Games from using 'Shabak' on coffee, beer, and restaurant services. No damages. Just a legal declaration that the two names are too similar.

What Sparked the Legal Fight?

The conflict centers on 'Shabak,' the name of a legendary fortress in Shanda Games’ hit online multiplayer game, The Legend of Mir 2 (《》). Since 2001, players have fought guild wars to conquer Shabak—a symbolic, in-game stronghold. By 2003, Shanda had registered 'Shabak' as a trademark across all 45 Chinese trademark classes and used it actively in its game.

But in 2003, when Shanda applied to register 'Shabak' for use in restaurants, beer, and coffee, Starbucks objected. The coffee giant argued the name was too close to its own 'Starbucks,' creating potential confusion among consumers. The initial Chinese Trademark Office disagreed, ruling the names weren’t similar enough. Starbucks then appealed to TRAB, which also rejected the claim.

How the Legal Process Unfolded

Here’s the step-by-step of the dispute:

• 2003: Shanda registers 'Shabak' in all 45 trademark categories; uses it in The Legend of Mir 2.
• Shanda applies for 'Shabak' in food/beverage/coffee categories; Trademark Office approves and publishes the application.
• Starbucks files an objection, claiming similarity to 'Starbucks.'
• Trademark Office rules the names aren’t similar; rejects Starbucks’ objection.
• Starbucks appeals to TRAB (Trademark Review and Adjudication Board).
• TRAB again finds no similarity; dismisses the appeal.
• Starbucks sues TRAB in Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court, seeking to overturn the decision. Shanda becomes the third party in the case.

If Beijing No. 1 Court upholds previous rulings, Starbucks can appeal further—to the Beijing High People’s Court, which would issue a final verdict.

What Are the Key Arguments?

TRAB’s reasoning included several points:

• The characters '' (sha) and '' (xing) differ significantly in pronunciation, form, and meaning.
• No evidence showed 'Starbucks' was a well-known mark in China at the time of Shanda’s 2003 application.
• The public wouldn’t likely confuse 'Shabak' with 'Starbucks.'

Legal experts agree the names are distinct. 'Shabak' refers to a specific in-game location, while 'Starbucks' is the Chinese rendering of the English 'STARBUCKS.' Pronunciation and spelling differ markedly. Most consumers, they argue, wouldn’t mix them up.

Shanda, for its part, isn’t backing down. The company stated it would “actively defend its intellectual property rights” and has assembled legal counsel to respond to Starbucks’ claims.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is Starbucks suing over a video game name?

Starbucks is trying to block Shanda Games from registering the name 'Shabak' for use on coffee, beer, and restaurant services. It argues 'Shabak' is too similar to its own brand name, 'Starbucks,' and could cause consumer confusion—even though the names refer to completely different things (a coffee chain vs. a video game fortress).

Has Starbucks won any part of the case so far?

No. Both the Chinese Trademark Office and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) ruled that 'Shabak' and 'Starbucks' are not similar enough to cause confusion. Starbucks lost those appeals and has now taken the case to the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court.

What does Shanda Games say about the lawsuit?

Shanda says it registered 'Shabak' as early as 2003 across all 45 Chinese trademark categories and has used it continuously, especially in its popular online game The Legend of Mir 2. The company claims the lawsuit is without merit and will fight to protect its intellectual property rights.

Could Starbucks still win the case?

Possible, but unlikely based on current rulings. The court would have to reverse earlier decisions by both the Trademark Office and TRAB, which found no significant similarity between 'Shabak' and 'Starbucks.' Legal experts note the names differ in sound, meaning, and appearance, reducing the chance of consumer confusion.

What happens if Starbucks loses in the Beijing court?

Starbucks can appeal to the Beijing High People’s Court, which would deliver a final ruling. If it loses there, the original TRAB decision stands—meaning Shanda keeps its rights to use 'Shabak' for coffee, beer, and restaurants.

Is this just about coffee, or other products too?

The trademark dispute covers multiple categories including restaurants, beer beverages, and coffee. Starbucks aims to block Shanda from using 'Shabak' in all those areas, not just coffee shops.