One Restaurant Sends Cease And Desist To Another Over The Word 'Juicy'
from the nah-dawg dept
If it seems like there are more stupid trademark battles per capita fought in the restaurant industry, it's not because you're crazy. It's very much a thing. Whether it's Taco John's wanting to own "Taco Tuesday", McDonalds insisting only it can call a fish sandwich a "filet o' fish", or two Brazilian restaurants fighting over the rights to use image of a fire in their logos, the common theme you should notice is how these battles are all over things that are descriptive or generic. And, yet, these fights rage on.
Take, for instance, a burger joint in Texas sending a cease and desist notice to another burger joint in Texas for daring to use the word "juicy."
Longhorn Cafe LLC sent a cease-and-desist letter to local restaurateur Andrew Weissman, owner of Mr. Juicy restaurants, demanding he stop using that name for his growing burger spots.
The letter, which Weissman posted to his Instagram yesterday, was sent on Longhorn Cafe’s behalf by lawyer John Cave of Gunn, Lee and Cave PC. It demands that Weissman stop using the name “Mr. Juicy” at the McCullough and Hildebrand locations, or any other restaurants. The letter also demands that Weissman remove Mr. Juicy from all internet listing sites such as Yelp and food delivery sites such UberEats. It gave Weissman 10 days to respond.
While the letter itself doesn't tease out what trademarks it has that make this all trademark infringement, its menu does include an item called the "Original Big Juicy" burger. That truly seems to be what all of this is about.
Which is stupid. We'll start with the fact that "juicy" is a descriptive term, particularly in the restaurant industry. Even if its use in the name of the restaurant is not describing a specific product, it's still descriptive generally. When you add to all of that the simple fact that the term "juicy," when it comes to food, is laughably generic, then the validity of this whole dispute goes right out the window.
To be clear, Longhorn Cafe's actual trademark is valid: "The Original Big Juicy". That whole term seems worthy of trademark status. But it certainly doesn't make a competitor in the foodstuffs industry using "juicy" infringing upon that trademark.
Weissman said it is unfortunate that Longhorn Cafe didn’t reach out to him to work something out before sending the letter. Nevertheless, he intends to fight it, which he acknowledges will cost money.
Needless money from a burger joint that probably can't afford it. Yay, trademark bullying!
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: hamburgers, juicy, trademark
Companies: longhorn cafe, mr. juicy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And so, we get the FRUIT of bad policy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"JUICY"
https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3182
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have heard business owners complain about having to pay their employees such "high wages" and yet I routinely see the wasting of significant amounts of cash on stupid court cases, it makes no sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's company lawyers trying to justify their budget for the next fiscal year. It's always lawyers trying to make money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So glad this is about some other state's Juicy burgers and I don't have to watch other Minnesotans rage about "Jucy" versus "Juicy" and other malarky like anywhere other than Matt's Bar being the place to get one.
I swear I am going to start a bar and make my signature burger be "The Moist Argument." It'll have salty tears on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeech... “Mr. Juicy?”
Yes, please stop using the name “Mr. Juicy”...
It’s not appetizing and sounds like someone’s pet name for their wiener.
What’s their slogan... “Come on in and get a mouthful of Mr. Juicy”?
But if it’s a growing chain... Maybe that’s what Texas wants?
It could be gay burger bar or a male strip joint, in which case that name works fabulously.
Otherwise it’s just a comical bad name, right up there with LoveSac bean bag furniture...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The meat of the issue
Does that mean that Longhorn Cafe LLC can be sued by Matt's Bar in Minneapolis, home of the original Juicy Lucy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The meat of the issue
This Juicy Luicy is Canadian, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiV1RlzNyy4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Juicy" hamburgers...
These two better tone it down quick. Wendy's trademark "Hot 'n' Juicy" almost certainly predates the existence of both companies. Not to mention the possibility of the Longhorn Steakhouse chain getting involved based purely on the other restaurant's name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Juicy" hamburgers...
Meanwhile, Wrigleys are chewing gum and contemplating what they should do since they have had Juicy Fruit since 1893 and a trademark on it since 1915.
So far they haven't started kicking ass and taking names.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Restaurent
i'm sure you have some sort of fucking point you'd like to make behind that completely irrelevant statement, but you're just a spam artist anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]