Do Morons In A Hurry Like Lettuce Restaurants?
from the lettuce-be dept
First it was a trademark fight over potatoes, and now lettuce? Eric Goldman points us to a trademark fight over the use of the word "Lettuce" in the name of a restaurant. You see, there's a restaurant chain called Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, who apparently got the trademark on "LETTUCE" when used in restaurant or catering businesses. Yet, a couple of folks, apparently blissfully unaware of such a trademark, tried to open up a restaurant called "Lettuce mix." When confronted over this issue, they covered their original sign with a banner that read: "Let us be!" and "Name pending..." but with images of heads of lettuce.Now, even if you accept that it makes sense for Lettuce Entertain You to own the trademark on "LETTUCE" in such situations, it would seem like what the new restaurant owners did was reasonable. Not so, according to LEYE. It's claiming that the new name pending banner still violates its trademark. Either way, the Lettuce mix owners are fighting back against the entire trademark claim over the word lettuce, and put up that other banner to call some attention to the trademark threat.
While the battle over the larger trademark issue will continue, in the meantime, the judge in the case denied the injunction request against the temporary banner, noting that the banner itself protesting the trademark dispute isn't actually "use in commerce" and thus, is not covered by trademark law.
Either way... really? There's a legal battle going on as to whether or not you can use the word "lettuce" (or even a homonym with an image of lettuce) in the name of a salad bar? What is the world coming to?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: lettuce, restaurants, trademark
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This makes no sense
The system is well and truly fraked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This makes no sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This makes no sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense
What is more interesting is that their trademark is the only one for using the word "lettuce." Four other applicants have tried to trademark logos or names using lettuce after the holder above, but all of them were rejected or abandoned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This makes no sense
I'll give you a hint: "Ruth's Chris" is not the full name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense
If you could get one on "Lettuce" you may very well be able to get one on "Steak." I'm sure you could challenge it in court, were you so disposed (i.e., moneyed.)
That's just mind-boggling stupid. Benny Hill slap-upside-the-head stupid. The *name of a food item* can be trademarked by a restaurant? Who, besides a trademark lawyer, would think that makes any kind of sense?
I should get a trademark on "Leafy Green Vegetables," and head them off at the pass. Frak it, I'm getting a trademark on "Restaurant." Frak all y'all.
Frakin' morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense
"Leafy Green Vegetables" would probably be permissible as the name of a restaurant. You could not trademark restaurant because that is a purely descriptive term, which is not allowed as a trademark. And before you complain about "Lettuce," that term describes the name of the restaurant, not the vegetable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense
You must be in a hurry. I said you'd have to go to court to challenge it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
courts need to throw this crap out.
Lettuce
LETTUCE
lettuce mix up some salad.....
sue me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iBacon
Step it up a notch above Iceburg Lettuce which is well known to have ZERO nutritional value.
Why not call it "Romaine Rule", "Hearts and Tomatoes", "The Parisian Feast" or even a simple "Green's"
I tried to figure out one with a whitty Bacon reference, but alas, I couldn't do it. So click on the link...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: iBacon
Per 72g:
7% DV vitamin A
3% DV vitamin C
2% DV iron
1% DV calcium
3% DV fiber
19 Calories
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: iBacon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: iBacon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: iBacon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lettuce Sue You
Here's their list: http://www.leye.com/restaurants
Not one of them uses "Lettuce" in the resto name. "Lettuce" is not "used in commerce" in any consumer-facing way, but is only used as the parent company's name.
How does "Lettuce Mix" cause confusion with the aggressor chain's Cafe Ba Ba Re Ba or other non-lettuce named establishments? Please have their lawyers explain.
A moron in a hurry would not be able to spot any similarity between the trade names at all, let alone be confused by it.
I particularly like the conglomerate's "Chez Gabi" restaurant on the Vegas strip, but most of their places are in Chicago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lettuce Sue You
It does not matter whether a "moron in a hurry" would recognize the difference in names. The trademark is for the word "lettuce" when used in conjunction with restaurants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lettuce Sue You
One company uses Lettuce (the accepted name of a food) as a descriptive part of their restaurant's name. They use lettuce the way "Gino's Pizza" uses "pizza" (you would encourage a lawsuit from another pizza company?).
Meanwhile, another company uses lettuce as the name of a holding company that owns restaurants. They use lettuce as a homonym for "let us", not as related to the vegetable. They operate commercial restaurants, none of which have "lettuce" in their name.
You are sneaky in the way you quoted me, trying to make it look like I said "Lettuce is not used in commerce", then positioning me as an idiot who has a commercial card from them in my wallet. The full quote has a very different meaning:
"Lettuce" is not "used in commerce" in any consumer-facing way, but is only used as the parent company's name."
One is the name of a holding company, and the other is the name of a restaurant. Different sectors, in my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most inventors work for companies that actually make products using those inventions. Even if the patents are asserted against others, lawsuits are long, expensive and time-consuming, even for the plaintiffs. Given that most plaintiffs lose, seems like betting on a patent to make money is a lot like playing the lottery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, trademark every word in the English language. Doing some rough math, I estimate that with attorney fees and USPTO fees, it would cost you more zero's than I can count to trademark all words for all purposes (because "lettuce" could also be trademarked for, as an example, a money exchange store).
Also, very, VERY few trademark suits end up worth any money. The vast majority of the time the infringing party is required to stop using the trademark. That is all. No money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's an Idea
Until everyone changes their names to symbols and are referred to as "the business formerly known as".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What?
Mike, do you not read your own articles? Techdirt's been around since 1997, spilling all the details of the absurdities of corporations and governments around the globe.
It's been 12 years, and you're just now asking this question?
;)
Ignoring the rhetorical hint of the question, I can easily answer it with one word: Chaos.
There. Now you can sleep better at night.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come Again?
Exactly what point are you trying to make about the usefullness of the current patent system?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Come Again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]