If you thought Starbucks UK's "duffin" pastry was just another trendy, corporate sham, you may have hit it right on the money. London bakery Bea's of Bloomsbury has accused Starbucks of ripping off their original Duffin recipe, leading to a social media storm on Twitter.
I understand that Starbucks UK wants to cash in on this hybrid dessert craze--I get that. But to make a product that uniquely contains buttermilk, nutmeg, and raspberry jam, and to have the name duffin, not doughnut muffin, and to have claimed that their team of 'bakers' came up with it magically on their own, seems a bit odd to me, particularly when the British baking lexicon isn't heavy on nutmeg or buttermilk.
The scandal has since inspired supporters to rally under the #Duffingate hashtag on Twitter.
Apparently, Starbucks supplier Rich Products trademarked the term "duffin," which could prevent Bea's from selling their pastries under the sane name. However, Bea's stated that Starbucks will soon release a statement allowing Bea's to sell goods under the "duffin" name. Of course, the "magnanimous" gesture did not go unnoticed.
Upon reaching out to Starbucks for a comment, a representative stated in an email to Foodbeast.
Since launching the Starbucks Duffin we have discovered there are other Duffins out there. Rich Products, who created our Duffin have trademarked the name in the UK, however neither Starbucks nor Rich Products has at any time suggested that we will attempt to stop Bea’s of Bloomsbury, selling their own Duffins.