Parking lot has gone to the beach.
Back in a week
You need to go to this page and click on the first Real Media link in the second section. There you will find a video of Daler Mehndi’s hit “Tunak Tunak Tun.”
Just go. Now.
AKMA is to blame
Here is an update on the Starbucks – HaidaBucks dispute. The news is that Starbucks has actually lied. They said, in a letter that they invited me to post in my weblog (which I did), that the two parties “have recently resolved their trademark dispute.”
In fact they haven’t resolved the dispute, and HaidaBucks has not made any changes to their name or logo to accomodate the ridiculous demands of Starbucks.
HaidaBucks has just released a statement that says:
HaidaBucks, in the village of Masset, is owned by three Haida men and one man married to a Haida woman. The First Nation has used the term ‘bucks’ to identify young males for decades. Hence, the name HaidaBucks. Three of the four owners played on a basketball team of the same name some years ago, and decided to use HaidaBucks as the name for their small coffee-house/restaurant. Notes co-owner, ‘for us, it’s about pride in our heritage. We are young men of the Haida Nation – Haida Bucks. We have a legal right to use the name and we will continue to do so.’
Starbucks sent the owners a cease and desist letter in March, 2003. HaidaBucks believed the letter to be spurious and ignored it. When the law firm threatened a suit, Joseph Arvay of Arvay Finlay agreed to represent the small caf�. (Arvay is intimately familiar with the Haida Nation; he is representing them in their landmark land claim case.) In April, the two sides exchanged letters. Starbucks offered to let HaidaBucks wait until the end of the year to change their name. The young Natives refused, countering that they would keep their name and wanted Starbucks to admit it was not a trademark infringement to do so.
A full two months after HaidaBucks’ letter, Starbucks sent HaidaBucks a letter that seemed to claim victory, but that claim appears to be premature. In the letter, Starbucks asserted that the small shop had changed its logo, its name and its signage. The letter also claims that HaidaBucks has agreed not to move or expand its business outside of Haida Gwaii, the island on which the restaurant is currently located.
The owners of HaidaBucks vehemently deny making any such changes or agreements. Willis Parnell, another co-owner of HaidaBucks said ‘Starbucks didn’t do enough research. Our name hasn’t changed; our graphics haven’t changed. And they’re not going to.’
In a July 4th letter to Starbucks’ lawyers Joe Arvay, acting for HaidaBucks, said:
Contrary to what you say in that letter, our client has not made any changes to its name and/or logo. Nor has it made any changes to the signage or name of its restaurant. It has not adopted a new logo. Our client continues to use the word HaidaBucks. Furthermore, our client has made no representations with respect to any constraints on expansion of its business outside of Haida Gwaii, nor will it agree to any such constraints on its business. Our position with respect to Starbucks’ allegations of trademark violation remains as set forth in our letter of April 28, 2003 – i.e. that Starbucks’ allegation was and is ill-conceived and has no chance of success.
It has come to our attention through emails from “Customer Relations”, info@starbucks.com, forwarded to us from Starbucks customers, that your client is advising members of the public that “Starbucks Coffee Company and Haida Bucks Caf� have recently resolved their trademark dispute” and that “In response to a letter sent by Starbucks in March, 2003, Haida Bucks Caf� has made several important changes to its name and logo that address many of Starbucks initial infringement concerns.” As noted above, this statement is completely untrue. Moreover, it is materially misleading to customers who are legitimately concerned with Starbucks’ action against our client.
The letter goes on to outline conditions under which HaidaBucks would like to see the matter resolved and extends the offer of a settlement to Friday July 11 (which is the 13th anniversary of the beginning of the Oka seige, a coincidence that will be totally lost on the noodleheads in Seattle).
I have sent the following letter to “Michael,” my new friend at Starbucks “Customer Relations:”
Hey Michael:
You have lied to me. HaidaBucks hasn’t made any changes, and you know it. Their lawyer has sent you a letter saying so.
What the hell is this game you’re playing? How much worse do you intend to make this for yourselves?
So I guess we’ll see what happens on Friday. Stay tuned.
Found a nice Flash presentation of a short meditation on peace by Thich Nhat Hanh.
Oh Bob! Thanks for pointing me to this website containing every episode of perhaps the most significant Canadian television series ever produced. That’s right: Hinterland Who’s Who.
In the 1960s and 1970s there were two major changes in Canadian society. First, more and more of the country was becoming urbanized and fewer people had experiences with the creatures of the wilderness. This was resulting in Canadians losing touch with the wildlife that was supposed to be one of our defining features.
THe other major trend was the spread of television. As Canada is a very very big country, we pioneered satellite TV and by the 1970s with the launch of the ANIK satellites, we became very more and more electronically connected to one another.
These two trends prompted the Canadian Wildlife Service to produce a series of 40 one minute vignettes about different wildlife species of our hinterlands. With a warbling Erik Satie-like solo flute theme, sparse text delivered with a detached smokey-voiced commentary and amazingly unspectacular footage (60 seconds of a chipmunk eating seeds), the series became a fixture of Canadian television during my childhood. It was often imitated and mocked (notably by CBC Radio’s comic duo Double Exposure who ran “Political Who’s Who” featuring the “Bob Rae” of southern Ontario), but always lovingly.
And now I can see these pieces again. It take me right back to being 5 years old again, watching Mr. Dressup and seeing the creatures of our huge country doing everyday things, piped straight into the rec room.