Talk about faking it!

In a landmark judgment, American coffee giant Starbucks has won a case against a Chinese rival, which opened a chain of coffee shops under the name Xingbake, which is Chinese for Starbucks!

What makes the judgment all the more significant is, that analysts believe that this may be a signal that China is finally relenting under the ever building pressure from the west regarding copyright theft and intellectual property right infringements. China is known to be the source of 70 per cent of the world's pirated goods and US companies claim they lose up to 0bn (£145bn) a year to piracy.

In the ruling made by a Shanghai court, the Shanghai Xingbake Coffee Co. Ltd was ruled to be engaged in "illegitimate competition" by infringing the copyright of Starbucks. Judge Lu Guoqiang also ordered Shanghai Xingbake to pay Starbucks 500,000 yuan, or ,000, in damages. The ruling stated that Xingbake's use of the name and similar logo was "clearly malicious" and constituted improper competition.

The Shanghai Xingbake Company opened their first coffee shop under the name Xingbake in 2003. "Xing" means "star" in Mandarin and when pronounced, "bake" sounds like "bucks". Starbucks had sued Shanghai Xingbake in December 2003. The new year sure did bring along with it a cup of good cheer for Starbucks, with the Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court deeming Starbucks, whether written in Chinese or English, and its logo to be famous trademarks. The ruling is the first of its kind under a 2001 law introduced to protect well-known international trademarks.

In it's appeal to the courts, Shanghai Xingbake claimed that it had the right to use its name even though it is the standard Chinese translation used for Starbucks, because it had registered as a company in the city in 1999, before the Seattle based international group, Starbucks. Starbucks, however, rejected the claim, saying that its name and mermaid trademark had been registered in China long before that in the very beginning of 1996.

Xingbake's general manager said that it was "just a coincidence" that its name and green-and-white circular logo so closely matched that of the Seattle-based chain. He had claimed so in 2003 right at the onset of the case saying, "I hadn't heard of Starbucks at that time, so how could I imitate its brand or logo?"

It may be recalled that during his visit to Beijing last year, President George Bush had especially urged the Chinese government to protect intellectual property rights. A State Council task force had also been set up to tackle the problem. The judgment is expected to further boost such measures and encourage other western companies to invest in the Chinese market. Foreign companies are wary of investing in China as they face competition from local companies imitating their brands, trademarks, logos or packaging and selling the same at prices cheaper than them.

Staff at Xingbake declined to comment on whether the company planned to abide by the ruling or would seek to appeal. No official statement was made regarding the matter either.