Richie wrote:
It was really an attempt at humour
And a good one, if wasted on you.
Richie wrote:
I'm suggesting Starbucks are a worldwide brand for which actions taken in one country impact other countries.
No, you're avoiding my question. Again.
.
What is untrue? That intellectual rights protection NOT taken out under in UK law nevertheless applies to the UK? That's a wild one, even for you. You should offer to do legal advice for Starbucks, they could have saved the money they've wasted on registering 20 UK trade marks.
Richie wrote:
The fact that you haven't explained well enough why you feel the distinction is relevant is hardly my fault now.
.
Oh but I have. The only reason you are pretending it has "not been explained well enough" (
) is to avoid having to admit that I am obviously right.
Richie wrote:
If you were a worldwide corporation, you would have a point. You are not, so you don't. No more than a corporation would if it complained about you avoiding tax by putting money into a pension or using an ISA.
My, you're quite the expert on straw men. But thanks for unwittingly conceding the argument. The point is, indeed, that Starbucks trade in the UK is absolutely part of the business of a "worldwide corporation", and therefore it is paying royalties to itself. Well done!
