Protecting IP in the Restaurant Industry: Trademarks and Brands, Copyrights, Licensing, and Performance Rights

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2016

1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific

Today’s faculty features:

Glenn S. Bacal, Managing Attorney, Bacal & Garrison, Scottsdale, Ariz.

Janet F. Satterthwaite, Partner, Potomac Law Group, Washington, D.C.

Steven S. Sidman, Founder and Managing Member, The Sidman Law Firm, Atlanta

The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10. Tips for Optimal Quality FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection.

If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-866-570-7602 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail [email protected] immediately so we can address the problem.

If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance.

Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again. Continuing Education Credits FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar.

A link to the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation will be in the thank you email that you will receive immediately following the program.

For additional information about continuing education, call us at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 35. Program Materials FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps: • Click on the ^ symbol next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left- hand column on your screen. • Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a PDF of the slides for today's program. • Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open. • Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon. November 29, 2016 Webinar

5 Today’s Discussion

Topic Speaker

Overview of IP issues in The USA in Janet the restaurant industry

Real life stories Steve

Real life court cases and what we Glenn can learn from recent disputes

Q&A Group

6 Overview of IP Issues in the USA in the Restaurant Industry

• Selecting and enforcing 1. Trademarks a strong name generally • Logos • Trade dress • Menu items

2. Trademarks • Ownership of IP and business • Licensing and investing

3. Trademarks and celebrity chefs

4. Entertainment and copyright

7 1. Trademarks generally

Got a NAME? Four Key Elements to Consider

Distinctiveness Clearance

Registration Enforcement

8 Distinctiveness: Try to Choose an Inherently Strong Mark

Mark type Example

• RESTAURANT Generic • THE GRILL LOW Descriptive • HEALTHY LIFESTYLE RESTAURANT • NOODLE SHOP Geographically • BOSTON GRILL Descriptive • BAR HARBOR CAFE

Suggestive • TACOLOGY

PLG TEAM PLG Arbitrary • BUFFALO BILLIARDS

Fanciful • saalna Degree ofdistinctiveness Degree

HIGH Use of Chef’s • [Separate topic] Name

9 Clearance: Do Your Due Diligence

• Searching– Don’t get sued!

– Knockout – Full + Opinion – Internet – Special considerations

10 Registration: Navigating the USPTO

• “Goods and Services” Restaurant Services — Live marks • Almost 40,000 records in USPTO “live” database • Cost is minimal • Registration takes about 18 months on average • Intent to Use option

11 Enforcement: Be Vigilant

• Police against Infringers – Watch Notices – Internet searching – Cease and Desist Letters and Lawsuits

12 Got a LOGO?

• Own the logo—assignment from designer • Register the logo with copyright Office • Register as Trademark

13 Got an Awesome Design Concept? Consider Trade Dress

Recent application by KFC

The color(s) red and white is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of a three- dimensional configuration of a tower with angled roof on its front face with red and white vertical stripes, and a panel of red and white vertical stripes on the side wall of the rectangular building. The broken lines show the placement of the mark in relationship to the structure, but no claim is made to the structure identified by the broken lines.

14 Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana*: A Cautionary Tale

"a festive eating atmosphere having interior dining and patio areas decorated with artifacts, bright colors, paintings and murals. The patio includes interior and exterior areas with the interior patio capable of being sealed off from the outside patio by overhead garage doors. The stepped exterior of the building is a festive and vivid color scheme using top border paint and neon stripes. Bright awnings and umbrellas continue the theme.”

* 505 U.S. 763 (1992)

15 Example Trade Dress: Goats on a Roof

Owner (REGISTRANT) Al Johnson's Swedish Restaurant and Butik CORPORATION WISCONSIN 702 Bay Shore Drive Sister Bay WISCONSIN 54234

Description of Mark The mark consists of goats on a roof of grass. The dotted lines in the drawing are intended to indicate the location of the mark and are not a feature of the mark.

16 Got Menu Items? Menu/Drink Items and Rights of Publicity

Stay Classy New York Will Farrell-themed Bar Sample Entries

• DID WE JUST BECOME BEST FRIENDS? (Two shots, one for you and one for a • friend. you can also leave a shot for a friend to redeem at a later date.)….$10 • DIRTY MIKE AND THE BOYS. (Any two draft beers and a house shot!)….$14 • HELP ME TOM CRUISE. (Spiced Rum, Ginger Beer, Vanilla, Bitters)…..$12 • GREAT ODIN’S RAVEN. (Light rum, ginger beer, lemon) ….$8 • MILK WAS A BAD CHOICE. (Vanilla Stoli, Vanilla Schnapps, Milk, Ice)….$10 • MUGATU MULE. (Tequila reposado, lime, bitters, ginger beer)….$10 • SHAKE AND BAKE. (Shaken whiskey and sour mix with a splash of ginger beer, • served with cherries and lime wedge)….$10 • SMELLY PIRATE HOOKER. (Jalapeno Margarita, Stoli jalapeno, orange • juice, sour mix, Muddled jalapen, lime juice)….$12 • GATOR DON’T PLAY NO SHIT. (Tequila, Orange Juice, Pineapple Juice, • Blue Curacao)…..$12 • WE’RE GOING STREAKING! (Adult Kool Aid! Dont ask just get naked)…..$14 • A WHALE’S VAGINA “San Diego” (Vodka, triple sec, orange juice,sloe gin)….$12 • YOU’RE MY BOY BLUE! (Gin, Blue curacao, Sweet and Sour, Pineapple Juice)….$12

17 Will Farrell-themed Drinks

• FRANK THE TANK. (A Pint Of Guinness & A Shot Of Whiskey)…..$10 • NEW FALL/WINTER DRINKS: • SON OF A NUTCRACKER. (Fireball, Rum Chata, Nutella, Eggnog.)…..$14 • BUDDY’S PUMPKIN PIE. (Pumpkin Liquor, Vanilla Vodka, Nutmeg and Cinnamon, shaken until • perfect)…..$12 • THE ELF. (Maple Bourbon, Maple Syrup, Candy Cane Stir)…..$14 • THRONE OF LIES. (Cherry Vodka, Peppermint Schnapps, Sloe Gin, Peppermint Candy)…..$14 • HANSEL’S SO HOT RIGHT NOW. (Fireball, Cider Beer, Grenadine, Mudled Cherries)…..$12

18 2. Trademarks and Business

Got Partners or Investors?

– Who owns the mark? – Organic and messy growth of Restaurant Groups – LP’s and LLC’s Expansion to other markets – Have a Prenup! – Think about: Spin off products—cookbooks, retail food products

19 Got a Licensing Opportunity?

• Pros: Revenue, brand extension Licensing- especially to new cities -OUT • Cons: Quality control is a burden

20 Got a Licensing Opportunity? [Cont’d]

Licensing IN

• Pros: Ready-made trademark and brand • Cons: You are building a brand not owned by you; can lose the License Franchising: the MegaLicense

21 Got an Investment Opportunity?

• Due Diligence for Investors – Trademark audit – Who owns the IP—What are you buying?

22 3. Trademarks and Celebrity Chefs

Got a Celebrity Chef?

• Use of own name as a trademark • Sale of restaurant concept with your name vs. right to use own name down the road

23 Celebrity Chefs: How Do They “Own” Their Marks?

• Jose Andres — filed in the name of Jose Andres Corporation • Wolfgang Puck — filed in the name of Wolfgang Puck Licensing LLC • Guy Savoy — filed in his own name

24 4. Entertainment and Copyright

Got Entertainment?

• Recorded Music, Live Music • Got the Big Game on the TV over the bar? • Big Topic: beware!

25 Protecting IP in the Restaurant Industry: Trademarks and Brands, Copyrights, Licensing, and Performance Rights Copyright, Name & Likeness Rights and Other Non-Trademark Considerations General Considerations • In an increasingly chef-driven restaurant culture, intellectual properties (in addition to a restaurant’s name, logo and trade dress) must be taken into account, from both the owner-operator’s/investor’s and the chef’s point of view. – Recipes – Menu contents and graphic design/layout – Chef’s name & likeness – Inventions & improvements • Affected by copyright law (federal), trade secrets law (federal and state), right of publicity, patent law (federal). • Dealt with by contract, via various means.

27 Recipes Not protected under the Copyright Act, per se.

§102(a)’s list of original works of authorship does not include recipes.

§102(b): “In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.”

See Copyright Office Circular FL-122: “Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients…. Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.”

28 Recipes, continued

• “Tangible fixation” of independently copyrightable expression may be protectable under copyright. – Particularly literary descriptions of recipes, ingredients, techniques and processes (e.g., in cookbooks, online, white/chalkboards, etc.).

• Protect by contract (individual contract with chef; employee handbook; confidentiality provisions + work-for-hire with alternative exclusive & perpetual license applicable to the “results & proceeds” of the engagement/employment relationship)

• Protect as actual trade secrets (determined by state law and, as of May 2016, federal law: the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S. Code § 1839). – Generally defined as “all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including… methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if (A) the owner… has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and (B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information.”

• Issues of attribution/plagiarism are business and ethical considerations; not legal ones, per se.

29 Additional Copyright Considerations: Menus

Menus are themselves copyrightable (selection and In a digital world, though, order; design/layout). infringement is all too easy.

30 Additional Copyright Considerations: Cookbooks • Key issues – Ownership & control – Restaurant-focused? – Chef-driven? – Revenue sharing

31 Name & Likeness Rights • Obtained by contract, generally as a license. • In chef-driven concepts, crucial for marketing purposes. • Reserved rights of chef outside of the formal restaurant setting are often heavily negotiated (cookbooks, personal appearances, TV shows, product endorsements, etc.).

32 Additional Considerations: Collateral Material & Associated Products • Often, in the course of • Typical examples are a restaurant’s existence, consumer goods, such new products are as sauces and other created to enhance the prepared foods (see, customer experience, e.g., Emeril Lagasse, or to create new Mario Batali, Wolfgang revenue streams, or to Puck, Rachael Ray, et boost profit margin. al.; see also Frontera, Rao’s, Margaritaville, et • Again, the key issues al.). are ownership and control. • New-era examples: Tock’s “ticketing” • Determined by reservation system; contract and applicable Crucial Detail’s service- law. and tablewear designs for The Alinea Group

33 Collateral Materials: Examples

34 And Finally, A Bit More About the Use of Music…. • Under §106(4) of the Copyright Act, public performance of musical compositions is an exclusive right of the copyright owner. • In the case of restaurants, the restaurant is deemed to be the performer, not the act itself (or the service provider). • Music can be directly licensed from the copyright owner, but that can be an administrative nightmare. • Options: blanket license from the performing rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, GRM), or all-in digital service (e.g., Pandora, SiriusXM, MoodMedia, Muzak, et al.). • Be wary of the fact that digital delivery licenses do not cover live performances.

35 Some Practical Takeaways

Glenn S. Bacal & Marissa Kovary Bacal & Garrison Law Group [email protected] 480-245-6233 November 29, 2016

 Similarly named restaurants physically separated by many miles may now be presented one after another in search engine listings.  Concurrent use or consents to use have often been a solution in the past – but these may not work as reliably in this new age.  Historically, concurrent use proceedings have resulted in the grant of concurrent registrations that cover different geographic areas.  But recent concurrent use restaurant cases illustrate the growing difficulties of the new age. See Southwestern Mgmt. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1007 (T.T.A.B. June 11, 2015) (precedential) (concurrent use registration sought for the mark –DELMONICO’S– for the same description of services—restaurants of any type—this was denied due to likelihood of confusion), aff’d on appeal, No. 2015-1939 (Fed. Cir. June 15, 2016).

Bacal & Garrison Law Group 37 Concurrent Use Cases Demonstrate the Problems of the Internet Era: Southwestern Mgmt. v. Ocinomled, Ltd.  A Three-Ring Circus—The Parties:  Chef Emeril Lagasse and his related company Emeril's Food of Love Productions, LLC (“EFOL”) that operates DELMONICO STEAKHOUSE in Las Vegas and DELMONICO in New Orleans.

 Ocinomled, Ltd. (“OL”) operates DELMONICO’S in New York City.

 The Applicant who triggered the fight was Southwestern Mgmt. They operate four restaurants located in upstate New York and one in Orlando, Florida.

 Applicant first applied to register the mark DELMONICO’S, in typed form, for “Restaurant services,” in Class 43. But this was unsuccessful.

 Applicant then sought a concurrent-use registration excluding a 40-mile radius around New York City’s Empire State Building and a 40-mile radius around the New Orleans Superdome and the Stratosphere in Las Vegas. And the two other Delmonico’s were allowed to argue against the concurrent use registration that was being sought.

Bacal & Garrison Law Group 38 Why was Southwestern’s concurrent use application denied?

 Goods & Services: There was a disconnect between what Applicant was saying about how it differed from the two others, and what it was actually claiming in its application.

 Applicant claimed its services were distinguishable from those offered by the other two Delmonico’s because it specialized in Italian food and steak offered at moderate prices.

 Applicant had filed however broadly for “restaurant services.”

 The Board found the services to be identical to those offered by the other Delmonico because an application for “restaurant services” includes within its scope “restaurants of all kinds and all price ranges.”

 To be consistent, Applicant should have applied for a registration that specifically defined its services in a way that would have avoided confusion with the types of restaurants owned by Opposers.

Bacal & Garrison Law Group 39 Why was Southwestern’s concurrent use application denied?  Historical Fame: The long historical use of the mark and its related goodwill belonged to none of the parties involved in the concurrent use proceeding, but it still had an effect on the analysis.

 Delmonico’s was a longstanding mark used in connection with a historic restaurant that was believed to have commenced business in the 1820s but had since closed.

 About a decade after the historic restaurant closed, in the 1990s OL’s predecessor opened a restaurant under the mark DELMONICO’S in the premises previously occupied by the historic restaurant.

 OL did not claim to own the goodwill of the historic Delmonico's restaurant (even though it references the historical restaurant throughout its website).

 The Board found that “OL enjoys a peculiar form of renown, because the press and public are very willing to conflate the identities of OL's restaurant with that of the historic Delmonico previously located at the same address.”

 While “[g]oodwill arising from operations of the historic Delmonico restaurant does not, in any legal sense, inure to OL's benefit . . , [a]t the very least, it resulted in virtually instantaneous name recognition.”

Bacal & Garrison Law Group 40 What can we learn from Southwestern Mgmt. v. Ocinomled, Ltd.?  The importance of tailoring your Goods & Services description carefully, especially if you are entering a crowded market.

 Where possible, if you are adopting a mark that at one time was famous, try to use it at or near the place where it achieved fame.  In this case, one of the parties benefited from the strength of the historical mark and the associated goodwill in the eyes of the public even though there was no business relationship between the party and the historic restaurant. There was built-in brand equity, even without any real chain of title back to the historical use.

Bacal & Garrison Law Group 41 Concurrent use agreements can work in certain situations but not necessarily in a situation where the senior user is considered to have sufficient national fame.

CASE COMPARISON  In Southwestern Mgmt. v. Ocinomled,  In Boi Na Braza, LLC v. Terra Sul Ltd., both of the senior users’ restaurants Corporation a/k/a Churrascaria Boi Na were found to have a substantial degree Brasa, 110 USPQ2d 1386 (T.T.A.B. 2014) of renown throughout the US. (precedential), the junior user was awarded concurrent use registration for  OL benefitted from the historical fame the entire country except NJ and NY. of an unaffiliated restaurant at the same location.  The junior user applied for the mark BOI NA BRAZA, in standard character form,  EFOL’s DELMONICO mark, while itself for restaurant and bar services. The Sul, not famous, benefited from its used the mark CHUsenior user, Terra connection to Emeril Lagasse, who RRASCARIA BOI NA BRASA in New made successful use of his fame and his Jersey. access to publicity in promoting EFOL’s DELMONICO restaurants.  The Board found that because the “New York restaurant scene’s embrace is sufficiently broad to reach Newark,” a New Jersey restaurant’s area of concurrent use included New York City and, by extension, New York State.

Bacal & Garrison Law Group 42 What could the senior user in Boi Na Braza, LLC have done differently to better protect its mark?  By geographically limiting itself, the senior user ran the risk of getting boxed in to a specific area.

 To avoid being boxed in, do not think small! Expand the reach of your advertising, and utilize some national advertising where possible.

Bacal & Garrison Law Group 43 One may not be enough. . .  What is the standard for use in interstate commerce?

 Problems for single location restaurants.

 A single location restaurant was not considered to be operating in interstate commerce even though it was located 3 miles from an interstate highway and had an online presence. See Doctor’s Associates Inc. v. Janco, LLC, Opposition No. 91217243 (T.T.A.B. January 7, 2016) (non-precedential).

 In Doctor’s, the Board noted that the applicant did not submit any evidence that the restaurant was listed in any travel or restaurant guide; and no advertising was submitted.

Bacal & Garrison Law Group 44 The New Age of Administrative Skepticism - Consent Agreements  Agreements between restaurants and food/drink providers with the same or similar names, and that purport to allow both parties to get registrations, won’t be rubber stamped any more.

 See In re Bay State Brewing Co., 2016 TTAB LEXIS 46 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016) (precedential).  Board affirmed Section 2(d) refusal of the mark TIME TRAVELER BLONDE for “beer” [BLONDE disclaimed], in view of the registered mark TIME TRAVELER for “beer, ale and lager,” despite consent agreement between applicant and registrant.

 The geographical limitations in the agreement were inadequate because the parties agreed to allow use of their respective marks in the same territories. The registrant was free to use its mark in the entirety of the applicant’s territory.

 The applicant filed an application for a nationwide registration when it should have sought a concurrent use registration.

Bacal & Garrison Law Group 45 The New Age of Administrative Skepticism – Surnames Versus Marks  Just because your restaurant bears your surname, and your name isn’t a common one, there may still be increasing barriers to federal registration.

 When determining what is primarily merely a surname, the Board is not just looking at whether the name would clearly be recognized as a surname but also considering, in the case of less common names, whether it is a surname of a family known to be involved in the exact business.

 See In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, Serial No. 86262060 (T.T.A.B. Sept. 27, 2016) (precedential).  The Board affirmed a Section 2(e)(4) refusal of the rare surname “ALDECOA,” for coffee, finding the mark to be primarily a surname.

 The applicant's website traced the Aldecoa's family history in the coffee business and the packaging contained the phrase “Premium Family Coffee.”

 This evidence showed that the applicant was “educating consumers as to the surname significance of ALDECOA” and was “persuasive of consumer perception of ALDECOA as a surname.”

 Applicant’s use of ALDECOA as a surname outweighed the rareness of the surname and its minimal public exposure in the media.

Bacal & Garrison Law Group 46 Maintaining Legacy Brands  A restaurant’s trademarks can be forfeited through non-use, no matter how well-known it may have previously become in the minds of consumers.

 When engaging in rebranding efforts or acquiring other entities, companies need to assess whether to retain their rights in brands in order to prevent third parties from later trading on their goodwill and name recognition.

 See Ziebarth v. Del Taco, LLC, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 324 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2015) (precedential) (fast food chain lost fight to retain trademark rights to name of a no longer operating subsidiary, allowing an individual who wanted to revive use of the name of the chain register it instead).

Bacal & Garrison Law Group 47 Ziebarth v. Del Taco, LLC  Del Taco acquired the popular Naugles restaurant in 1988 but then shut it down in 1995.  Petitioner sought a registration for NAUGLES in 2010, but the registration was refused as likely to cause confusion with Del Taco’s still valid NAUGLES registration. Petitioner appealed, arguing that Del Taco had abandoned the brand.  During the cancellation proceeding, Del Taco’s witness testified that the company stopped using the Naugles mark as the actual name of any restaurants from 1995 until 2010, when Petitioner filed his registration.  To show purported continued use of NAUGLES, Del Taco pointed to archived images of its website from 2003 to 2006, and referenced an alleged “secret menu” previously offered only in Naugles restaurants that Del Taco customers can order from, as well as use of the mark on clothing.

Bacal & Garrison Law Group 48 Ziebarth v. Del Taco, LLC:

 The Board held that:  Use of the Naugles service mark on clothing did not support a finding of continued use for restaurant services.

 The archived website images merely recounted the history of the merger and were clearly not advertisements for services rendered.

 The sale of food items previously sold at Naugles restaurants does not constitute current use of the Naugles mark by Del Taco. There was no evidence that the mark appeared on advertising materials, that Del Taco promoted the Naugles secret menu, or that the mark was itself referred to in connection with the secret menu.

Bacal & Garrison Law Group 49 Lesson Learned from Ziebarth v. Del Taco, LLC: How to avoid a determination of abandonment of a mark?  To be used as a service mark, the mark must be used in the advertising or sale of the services and the services must be rendered. Del Taco had not rendered restaurant services under the mark since 1995.

Bacal & Garrison Law Group 50 History Shouldn’t Be a Mystery

 Clarity of ownership is a huge issue for restaurants. There is usually a lot of uncertainty if the business expands, falls apart, or merges with or is acquired by another business. These issues are often ignored at the front end when everyone is excited about the new restaurant.

 If you are going to claim ownership through others, don’t pay lip service to chain of title issues.

 Keeping good records (aka evidence if you get into a dispute) is becoming increasingly important in trademark disputes.

 Ziebarth v. Del Taco, LLC demonstrates the importance of keeping good records. In the cancellation proceeding, the witness who testified on behalf of Del Taco regarding continued use had no personal knowledge of relevant events prior to 2009, even though the mark at issue had been owned and used since 1988. His testimony was based on conversations with legal counsel and others he was unable to name. While his testimony was not thrown out, the court did not give it any significant probative value.

Bacal & Garrison Law Group 51 Jumping On The Bandwagon to Litigation

 Jumping on popular trends, and cashing in on popular TV and movie titles, may not be such a good idea.

 Applications to register THE WALKING DEAD for themed restaurant services, as well as for coffee, cigarettes and smoking accessories, glassware, bottled water and t-shirts, are currently being opposed by the creator of “The Walking Dead” comics on which the popular TV show is based.

 My Big Fat Greek Gyro, a small restaurant franchise, had to rebrand to The Simple Greek after discovering a company already trademarked MY BIG FAT GREEK. The restaurant tried to save money by not performing a trademark clearance search. In the end, it had to hire a rebranding specialist and develop new advertising material; it also lost any goodwill associated with its prior name.

Bacal & Garrison Law Group 52 The Decline of Precedent as Power  Getting one registration in block letters may no longer be the ticket to additional registrations for the same mark with additional elements that it once was.

 In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594(Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming refusal of CHURRASCOS in stylized form for “restaurant and bar services; catering,” even though applicant had a registration for CHURRASCOS in standard character form for the same services).

Bacal & Garrison Law Group 53 How menu items can get you sued:  Even if your recipe is not the same as that of a trademark owner, using the same name on your menu can get you in a pickle.

 A pecan pie with bourbon and chocolate chips is commonly referred to as a derby pie and is one of the most popular dishes served during the Kentucky Derby.

 Kern’s Kitchen in Kentucky obtained a registration for DERBY-PIE in 1969. Kern’s original recipe is made without bourbon and contains walnuts instead of pecans.

 Kern’s is not shy about protecting its rights. Restaurants that have been challenged by Kern’s include:  Claudia Sanders Dinner House (menu item now reads: “Claudia's Kentucky Pie - Made With Chocolate Chips and Pecans”)  Science Hill Inn (menu item now reads: “Chocolate Pecan Pie”)  White Light Diner (changed menu item to “‘I Can’t Call it Derby Pie’ Pie” but was sued by Kern’s)

Bacal & Garrison Law Group 54 SUMMARY  It’s a changing trademark world for restaurants.  Ignoring the need for a sophisticated trademark strategy has been the downfall for many restaurants  If no thought out strategy about concurrent use, you could end up like the losing Delmonico's  If don’t really observe trademark requirements – like use in interstate commerce rather than merely having a single location with no interstate advertising – you can lose in the Trademark Office and vis a vis competitors who challenge you  If you reach agreements that don’t make sense to trademark examiners – like the consent agreement for Time Travelers – you will end up having your arrangement rejected

Bacal & Garrison Law Group 55  You need to pay attention to:  What things am I using that might be protected? (menu items, slogans, colors, trade dress, website, designs, etc.)  What things am I using that others might have already claimed rights in?  How do I preserve and document the rights I may have in trademarks, trade dress and copyright?  How do I learn from the mistakes of others?  What effect will the Internet and the shrinking marketplace in the eyes of consumers have on my choices of intellectual property?

Bacal & Garrison Law Group 56 Thank You

Janet F. Satterthwaite Steven S. Sidman Potomac Law Group The Sidman Law Firm 202-486-1578 404-920-0121 [email protected] [email protected]

Glenn S. Bacal Bacal & Garrison Law Group 480-245-6233 [email protected]