Hey, there! Log in / Register
Suit: This town not big enough for two Living Rooms
By adamg on Tue, 10/27/2009 - 11:23am
The Living Room, an Atlantic Avenue restaurant, filed suit yesterday against Starwood Hotels, which is about to open a restaurant called the Living Room in its new W hotel on Stuart Street in the Back Bay.
In its suit, filed in US District Court in Boston, the original Living Room says the new Living Room would confuse Boston diners, that it's trademarked the name for use as a restaurant and that it was here first - it opened in 2002. The W Living Room is scheduled to open on Thursday.
Complete Living Room complaint.
Globe story in which the reporter worries we're not hip enough for a W hotel.
Earlier:
The restaurant tomato fight.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
W
Good catch. I did not know there was a W hotel opening up in Boston.
You'd think the letter W
would be tainted for at least the next 50 years, at least 'round these parts.
This hotel brought to you by ...
... the letter "W" and the number 9.
Starwood will lose badly.
This is quite clear cut, and frankly speaks really poorly about Starwood and the W.
I'm not a lawyer, but I
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it's so clear cut. The W chain uses the "Living Room" label for the lobby bar in all of the hotels. And since they are trans-regional, they may have better standing to claim the trademark than a local (unless the local actually has it registered, which I doubt). My company went through the process of brand trade marking and long standing use of a name is no guarantee if there is another claimant using it in multiple locations.
A larger point might be that the term living room is used generically by everybody in this country to mean place for relaxation. I doubt it can be owned as a label anyway. My guess is that the local restaurateur is hoping for some publicity and a cash settlement.
not a lawyer here either...
(I've just been aprty to about 5 different suits concerning trademarks)
The Living Room's complaint says they do have it trademarked, and I for one think it is beyond obvious how confusing it might be to an individual trying to find out where "Living Room" is. They have a very strong case here and I'd be shocked if they don't prevail.
Many words have common usage (such as "living room") but when trademarked for a specific use, another similiar business can not use the same name.
A useful precedent case: Burger King in Mattoon, Illinois
Pretty much the exact same situation: large multi-national chain vs small local operator who had the local trademark first:
Burger King (Mattoon, Illinois)
The result was a demarcation of mutual exclusion zones: only the local operator can use the name 'Burger King' in a 20-mile radius around his restaurant, and only the large chain can use it outside that radius.
I expect the same thing will happen here, and W will need to find a new name for their Boston restaurant, which is a half-hour walk from the real Living Room on Atlantic Avenue.
One State's Approach ...
When I was growing up in Oregon, there was a chain of steak houses known throughout the Northwest as "Black Angus". In the Portland area, it was known as "Cattle Company". That's because there was a pre-existing Black Angus steakhouse, and Oregon law gave a 50-mile radius exclusive on that name to the business that registered it first. Squatting didn't count - you had to be doing business under that name first.
I think it was set up so that there wouldn't be these lawsuits ... the rules were established ahead of time.
Oh, yeah, you grew up west of the Rockies
So you probably ate Best Foods mayonnaise, instead of Hellman's :-).
You have to be creative......
Another sign of how old I'm getting is
that no one else has mentioned the late, lamented stripjoint in the 1960's Combat Zone called "The Living Room".