The problem of having/being a copycat

I was reading the Sunday Times today and came upon an article about how Starbucks’ case against the similarity of its logo with that of Taiwanese coffee chain Ecoffee was recently rejected because of the latter’s so-called distinctive features.

This is what I found on the Tai E International Patent Law & Office website:

Two logos respectively being “ECOFFEE & Design壹咖啡” and “STARBUCKS COFFEE and Design”, both comprising the white word “COFFEE” on a green circumference framing a white picture on a brown background were held to be distinctive by the Taipei High Administrative Court on December 13, 2007; because the word coffee is illustrative of the designated goods and the circular device has become a weak mark.

And this:

Therefore, the two trademarks “STARBUCKS COFFEE and Design” and “ECOFFEE & Design壹咖啡” should be deemed distinguishable since consumers applying a normal level of attention would not be confused.

I agree that the Ecoffee logo, while being rather similar to the Starbucks one, still has enough differences to warrant it to not be exactly like Starbucks - yes, as a customer I can tell the difference between the two.

However, what struck me was this quote from Mr Steven Soo, the Singaporean franchiser of Ecoffee:

“Ecoffee is like a Chinese Starbucks and I think there is a market for it here.”

The issue for me is not one of fooling your customers (I highly doubt that any regular Starbucks coffee lover would mistake one for the other), but one of how Ecoffee is marketing itself.

Why would any business want to market themselves as a local version of insert-highly-distinctive-much-loved-by-consumers-brand-here, when they can create a unique personality for themselves that automatically differentiates themselves from their competitors?

It’s like being a lesser-known relative of a famous person (Brad Pitt’s half-brother, Bill Gates’ Mexican cousin, etc). Why would you ever want to settle for second best?

Coincidentally, Michael Netzley from CommunicateAsia has also commented on this issue. He asks a very important question: Instead of trying to defend yourself from being labeled a copycat, why not just focus on differentiation and creating a brand that you can be proud of?

Today’s newspaper also featured a similar article ($50 iPod? Sounds too good to be real) on a S$50 MP3 player that looks convincingly similar to the iPod nano. In the article, one owner of the copycat nano says this:

“Honestly, not many people can tell the difference between the real and fake players. So I feel that I have made a smart decision to invest in a fake iPod.”

This leads me to several questions:

What motivates people to buy copycats? Is it a symbol of status that people desire but may not be able to afford? i.e. It makes me want to buy a Prada-lookalike bag because I want to be viewed as fashion-forward and trendy by my peers.

Also, the abovementioned user sees her purchase as an investment, meaning that she will get returns from it presumably via fooling people into believing that she has the real thing.

What if more consumers decide that buying an iPod lookalike at a fraction of the price is enough to buy into the brand experience, since most other people won’t be able to tell the difference (unless they start playing with the interface)? What does this mean for the original company?

I don’t know if these are important questions, but they popped in my head, so I just thought that I’d share them with you. Feel free to share your own views too.