Starbucks Says ‘Dumb Starbucks’ Can Not Use Starbucks Name

(Photo: Twitter user @MarkMcCune)

A quick update to the earlier story about the “Dumb Starbucks” store that opened up in L.A. over the weekend with operators claiming they don’t need permission to use the coffee chain’s name because the addition of “dumb” makes it a parody and therefore covered by the doctrine of fair use. Starbucks disagrees.

In a statement to the L.A. Times, a rep for Starbucks gives a vague explanation of the company’s current stance on the store that came out of nowhere.

“We are evaluating next steps and while we appreciate the humor, they cannot use our name, which is a protected trademark,” says the rep.

Some believe that the operators of the Dumb Starbucks are confusing copyright and trademark. Fair use generally covers the parodic use of copyrighted content — that’s why people can do parody covers of songs or why TV sketch shows can do spoofs of other shows and movies without worrying about getting sued or having to pay the original’s authors. Trademark parody isn’t as cut and dry, especially when the creators of an alleged parody make no attempt to hide the fact that they are merely using the parody defense to take advantage of a trademarked brand name, which the Dumb Starbucks folks did in an FAQ handed out at the store.

There are those who believe the operators of Dumb Starbucks have no interest in operating a coffee shop or of making a point about parody and copyright or trademarks, but will be revealed to be a publicity stunt for someone (or group of persons) looking to do anything to stand out.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Teen Scams Walmarts Out Of $30,000 By Pretending To Be Manager From Another Walmart

I once knew a guy who said that with the right outfit and enough confidence, you can get through any door. Looks like a 17-year-old in Oklahoma took that lesson to heart, walking into multiple area Walmarts and walking out with wads of cash in his pocket.

KFOR-TV (yes, the same station with the homophobe restaurateur story from earlier today) reports that police in Norman, OK, recently caught the young scam artist, but not until after he’d already tricked a Walmart workers at a trio of stores to give him access to cash.

The teen had previously worked at a Walmart until he was fired (for stealing cash, obviously). But he kept the uniform and apparently realized he could use it to get more money dishonestly than he would have with an honest day’s work.

At one point he showed up in uniform to a Walmart in Edmond, OK, where the manager had him work the cash register… from which police say he stole $3,000.

He then promoted himself to manager when he visited the store in Moore, OK, in December.

According to the police report, the teen “acted as if he was a general manager from another store,” who was there to do “an inventory of the store before general managers came to inspect them after the holidays.”

Somehow, the young whipperscammer found himself alone in the cash room, where he helped himself to “multiple bundles of cash, stuffing them inside his pockets and clothes,” before hugging the real store manager on the way out.

It wasn’t until he tried the scam again in Norman that police finally caught up to the young man.

“He’s obviously confident in what he’s doing and has a good story,” explains a police sergeant to KFOR, who reports that the 17-year-old appears to be an aspiring actor.

This is already the second story we’ve done this month about a sketchy guy pretending to be a Walmart employee. Last week, we brought you the tale of fake Walmarter who took a hit to his genitals after he exposed them to a customer.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

California Plant Shuts Down After Recalling 8.7 Million Pounds Of Beef “Unfit For Human Food”

(emuphoto)

In what sounds like the perfect storm of awfulness and complete inedibility, a Northern California plant has announced it’s voluntarily closing after issuing a recall for 8.7 million pounds of beef. Why? Because federal officials say the plant “processed diseased and unsound animals” without a full federal inspection, resulting in products that are “unfit for human food.” Yum.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service says due to that lack of inspection, “the products are adulterated, because they are unsound, unwholesome or otherwise are unfit for human food and must be removed from commerce.”

Rancho Feeding Corp. recalled those products, which were sold to retailers and distributors, though there have been no illnesses reported yet due to the beef in question, the company and the USDA said.

The plant’s quality control manager said in a statement to the Los Angeles Times that the plant enacted the recall “out of an abundance of caution” and that the company regrets the inconvenience to its customers.

Included in the recall are products produced Jan. 1, 2013 through Jan. 7, 2014 and shipped to distribution centers and retail establishments in California, Florida, Illinois and Texas:

“Beef Carcasses” (wholesale and custom sales only)

2 per box “Beef (Market) Heads” (retail only)

4-gallons per box “Beef Blood” (wholesale only)

20-lb. boxes of “Beef Oxtail”

30-lb. boxes of “Beef Cheeks”

30-lb. boxes of ” Beef Lips”

30-lb. boxes of “Beef Omasum”

30-lb. boxes of “Beef Tripas”

30-lb. boxes of “Mountain Oysters”

30-lb. boxes of “Sweet Breads”

30- and 60-lb. boxes of “Beef Liver”

30- and 60-lb. boxes of “Beef Tripe”

30- and 60-lb. boxes of “Beef Tongue”

30- and 60-lb. boxes of “Veal Cuts”

40-lb. boxes of “Veal Bones”

50-lb. boxes of “Beef Feet”

50-lb. boxes of “Beef Hearts”

60-lb. boxes of “Veal Trim”

Beef carcasses and boxes bear the establishment number “EST. 527″ inside the USDA mark of inspection, and each box bears the case code number ending in a 3 or a 4.

California Firm Recalls Unwholesome Meat Products Produced Without the Benefit of Full Inspection [FSIS]

After recalling 8.7 million pounds of beef, California firm shuts down [Los Angeles Times]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Unlocked iPhones Now A Form Of International Currency

(immaculate aaron)

Want to make friends all over the world? Have an extra $650 and don’t really care about customs regulations? The next time you leave on an international trip, grab an extra unlocked iPhone and bring it along to sell or trade. You’ll gain friends everywhere, especially in Brazil, Jordan, or Turkey, which are apparently the most expensive places to buy an iPhone.

This trade is not, strictly speaking, legal, but everyone sort of acknowledges that it happens. People all over the world got hold of iPhones before their respective countries’ telecoms officially offered them. Anyone who wanted the hottest gadgets, gray market or no, found a way to get one.

Bloomberg’s Vernon Silver picked up a phone on behalf of a woman who does domestic work for him at his home in Rome. The 32 GB iPhone 5s costs around $815 in New York City, including sales tax, but would sell for about $1,130 in Rome. The purchase required a call to his bank’s antifraud department, but such transactions are now apparently totally routine. Silver claims that cashiers at the flagship Manhattan Apple Store asked him if he wanted “only one?” unlocked iPhone, as if the $650 gadgets were McDonald’s apple pies.

Carrying value around in small, easily-portable but valuable packages is nothing new–people have always brought designer goods, jewelry, electronics, or other items that they plan to sell home “as gifts.” Whether this is okay depends on the customs regulations at your destination; after all, customs fees are part of the reason why iPhones cost more in some places than in others. Check these regulations before you load your suitcase up with gold iPhones the next time you travel.

Apple’s iPhone, the New International Currency

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Uncle Ben’s Rice Recalled Following Multiple Illnesses At Schools

The makers of Uncle Ben’s rice have recalled various versions of the product that were only sold on the wholesale market following multiple incidents where numerous people fell ill after eating the rice at school lunchrooms.

The recall involves several varieties of Uncle Ben’s Infused Rice products, but only those sold at wholesale in 5-lb and 25-lb bags. Uncle Ben’s rice sold in smaller bags at supermarkets and other retail locations is not being recalled.

USA Today reports that the most recent incident involving suspected rice-related illnesses occurred last Friday, when children at three different schools in Katy, TX, experienced burning, itching rashes, headaches and nausea.

While it’s too soon to say that all the incidents are related to the same source or exactly what the problem with the rice is, it’s possible that the illnesses may be due to too much niacin (vitamin B3) in the rice. The FDA found high levels of the vitamin in the Illinois rice.

“Overexposure to niacin can lead to skin reactions such as redness and flushing, itching and dry skin,” a rep for the FDA explains. “Very large doses can cause indigestion and nausea.”

Any foodservice company or anyone that purchased the following products (in the 5-lb or 25-lb size; again, all other variations are not included in the recall) from a wholesaler or distributor should not eat, says the FDA.

Here are the recalled varieties of the rice:

UNCLE BEN’S® INFUSED® Rice Roasted Chicken Flavor (25-lbs) U3010501

UNCLE BEN’S® INFUSED® Rice Roasted Chicken Flavor (5 lbs) U0257000

UNCLE BEN’S® INFUSED® Rice Garlic & Butter Flavor (5-lbs) U0257100

UNCLE BEN’S® INFUSED® Rice Mexican Flavor (25-lbs) U0318000

UNCLE BEN’S® INFUSED® Rice Mexican Flavor (5-lbs) U0257300

UNCLE BEN’S® INFUSED® Rice Pilaf (5-lbs) U0262000

UNCLE BEN’S® INFUSED® Rice Saffron Flavor (5-lbs) U0263002

UNCLE BEN’S® INFUSED® Rice Cheese Flavor (5-lbs) U0262900

UNCLE BEN’S® INFUSED® Rice Spanish Flavor (25-lbs) U3012100

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Vietnam Greets Its First McDonald’s With Big Crowds, Blasting Techno Music

(Consumerist Dot Com)

Can you remember the first time you stepped into a McDonald’s? For many Americans, the answer is probably not, and subsequent trips are probably all a blur of fry grease and hamburger patties. But for the crowds lined up outside Vietnam’s first Mickey D’s, in Ho Chi Minh City on Saturday, that memory is much more immediate.

The fast food chain opened its doors in the country for the very first time amid a blitz of fanfare and excitement, reports USA Today, with blasting techno music and hundreds lined up behind velvet ropes to get in as soon as the restaurant opened.

The new McDonald’s has 350 seats and offers the usual fare — Big Macs, french fries, Chicken McNuggets and the like — which is far from usual for a population that has a wide selection of cheaper street fare available.

It wouldn’t be a hyped opening without “free balloons, face-painting, live performers and photo-ops with Ronald McDonald” to create a “festive atmosphere” while family members of the new McDonald’s employees made sure to capture everything on camera.

It’s not like there’s no fast food there either — KFC, Burger King, Baskin-Robbins, Dairy Queen, Carl’s Jr., Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Subway, and of course, Starbucks. And of course, some customers have encountered McDonald’s before, including a family of Americans from Indiana who’ve lived in the country for a year.

“It’s nice to see a little bit of America here,” said the mother of three kids who were up at 5:30 a.m. due to excitement on the morning of the opening.

But some Vietnamese customers aren’t all that impressed with the brand they’ve only heard about so far: A group of teens and young adults chimed in to tell the reporter that the burgers and chicken sandwiches were great. But French fries? Meh.

“We don’t really like the fries,” admitted one, with piles of leftover fries littering the group’s trays.

Add again, there’s that cheaper street food with all the local flavors the Vietnamese love.

“It’s just fast food,” said the owner of a shop down the street that serves pho noodle soup. “It doesn’t have all the delicious flavors of pho.”

She’s not worried about the competition, and instead says she’s willing to try out McDonald’s at some point, to be nice.

“They’re our neighbors,” she explained. “Neighbors should help each other.”

McDonald’s brings Big Macs to Vietnam [USA Today]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Homophobe Restaurant Owner Shouldn’t Be Surprised His Eatery Now Touted As “Best Gay Club” On Yelp

If a local restaurant owner goes on local TV to talk about how he hates gay people and doesn’t want them as customers, it’s not a shock that people will get angry and boycott, protest, petition… the usual stuff. But in the age of Yelp, that owner should probably also expect to find that his business is now being written up online as the “best gay club” around.

Last week, when a KFOR-TV reporter asked the owner of an Enid, OK, restaurant/bar about allegations that he wasn’t exactly the most open-minded businessman in town, he admitted, “I’ve been in business 44 years, I think I can spot a freak or a faggot… I really don’t want gays around.”

He continued to enlighten the reporter on the difference between right and wrong.

“If I reached over there and slapped the sh** out of you, you should be offended,” he explained. “But to call someone a ‘chink’ or someone call me a bigot, that doesn’t bother me.”

When the reporter asked him if he would call her a “chink,” he nervously replied, “No… not unless we were drinking.”

And so, in addition to the normal social media outrage that has arisen out of this situation, folks have taken to Yelp to create a prank page, complete with photo of the owner and a male exotic dancer, and reviews that say things like, “I thought this place was going to be cheap. But it was the all male review night and I had to whip out all my singles. Despite the lovely views and even lovelier men my burger had way [too] many sesame seeds. So I have to give it a 2 stars.”

[via Eater]

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Justice Dept. Sued Over Validity $13 Billion Chase Mortgage Settlement

(Santos Gonzalez)

Remember back in November when JPMorgan reached the massive $13 billion settlement with the Justice Dept. over allegations tied to toxic mortgage-backed securities sold to investors before the housing market went kerflumpp? A non-profit group filed suit today against the DOJ, challenging the validity of the deal and asking for a court to review it.

The group, Better Markets, filed the complaint [PDF] in a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., claiming that in exchange for the $13 billion, the DOJ gave Chase “complete civil immunity from DOJ for years of pervasive, egregious, and knowing alleged fraud and other illegal conduct related to the worst financial crash in the U.S. since 1929.”

In spite of the fact that this was the largest settlement ever reached by the government in a suit involving a single bank, Better Markets says nothing about the process was transparent.

“[T]his contract was the product of negotiations conducted entirely in secret behind closed doors, in significant part by the Attorney General personally, who directly negotiated with the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, the bank’s ‘chief negotiator,’” reads the complaint. “No one other than those involved in those secret negotiations has any idea what JPMorgan Chase really did or got for its $13 billion because there was no judicial review.”

Better Markets maintains that because of the lack of disclosure about the settlements and the negotiation process “no one has any ability to determine if the $13 Billion Agreement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the public interest or if it is a sweetheart deal” for Chase.

Among the questions raised by the complaint: How much did Chase’s victims ultimately lose through these alleged frauds? Perhaps more importantly, how much did Chase profit?

Alleging, among other claims, that the administration violated the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 by including a $2 billion payment to the DOJ without a court’s approval, the complaint asks that the deal be declared unlawful and that the court issue an injunction to prevent the DOJ from enforcing the agreement until it has been reviewed and approved by a court.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Too Much Of A Good Thing? ‘Flappy Bird’ Developer Pulls Game After Surge Of Success

(CNN)

Anyone who’s ever eaten an entire cake in one sitting knows that yes, it is possible for there to be too much of a good thing. And that goes for inedible things as well: The sudden success of mobile game Flappy Bird appears to have been too overwhelming for its developer, who pulled the mega popular game from app stores yesterday say he just “cannot take this anymore.”

What’s that, you haven’t even heard of Flappy Bird? Though it was first released last May, CNN notes that the game suddenly picked up steam in December and had reached bona fide viral success by January.

In it, players steer a little bird through a maze of metal pipes ( which themselves are reminiscent of Super Mario Bros). And it’s now been downloaded over 50 million times. Sometimes simplicity is the key to success, eh?

But while those who have already downloaded it can keep playing, no new users will be able to get in on the action.

“I am sorry ‘Flappy Bird’ users, 22 hours from now, I will take ‘Flappy Bird’ down,” the developer tweeted on Saturday. “I cannot take this anymore.”

He’s not saying much else about the reasons for his decision to pull the game, which he created in a few days last year and didn’t promote at all after its release.

“It is not anything related to legal issues,” he said. “I just cannot keep it anymore.”

There’s still hope for those who want to play — if you’ve got deep pockets, that is: Time.com reports that phones with Flappy Bird already downloaded on it have already popped up on eBay for as much as $1,499. Ah, priorities.

Developer yanks ‘Flappy Bird’ after game soars to success [CNN]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

McDonald’s Customer Gets Wrong Burger Twice, Fires Gun Into Window

(bluwmongoose)

Yes, it can be deeply disappointing when a fast-food joint doesn’t prepare your burger exactly how you ordered it. There are many ways to deal with that situation: ask for a manager, complain to corporate, demand that they re-make your meal immediately…or fire a pistol into the window of the restaurant. You could do that, too.

You could do that, but that doesn’t mean it’s a rational response or even remotely a good idea. Yet police say that late last night, that’s how a woman in Grand Rapids, Michigan made her concerns known to her local McDonald’s.

It all began when she came through the drive-thru and ordered a burger, which the restaurant prepared incorrectly. That’s unfortunate, but it happens. Employees promised her a free meal on her next visit when she complained, and she went on her way. That’s all a nice, normal fast food transaction.

Around 3 AM today, the woman came back and ordered another burger. This one was also prepared incorrectly. Instead of going through the normal complaint channels, police say that she got out of the car and fired a round into the restaurant’s window.

Fortunately, no one was injured in this altercation. The woman got back in the car and she and her companion drove off. The thing is, when she complained about the original incorrectly-made burger, she left her phone number behind. Her real phone number.

Our readers often tell us that when you don’t like something and complain about it, the last thing that you want is a coupon or voucher for more of that item. That’s true. We’d suggest requesting a refund before you start shooting, though.

Wrong burger orders lead to shot being fired at Grand Rapids McDonald’s [MLive]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist