BBQ battle.

[timothy]

I thought it was odd that Weber choose a name of a local and popular BBQ joint as a name.

Barbecue battle: Chicago restaurant claims Palatine-based Weber infringed its trademark name

A Chicago barbecue restaurant is taking on grilling giant Weber-Stephens in a federal trademark dispute. Smoque BBQ said the Palatine-based grill manufacturer’s application to trademark a new line o...

www.dailyherald.com

 

[Timothy F. Lewis]

This is sad to see, I’m quite surprised that the “team” at Weber simply missed this, let alone the patent office.

 

[timothy]

Yea I heard it on newsradio 780 this am while going fishing.

 

[LMichaels]

just saw it on my news feed

 

[DanHoo]

I know nothing of patent / trademark law, but the two trademarks are in different segments:

IC 043: restaurant services, restaurant and bar services, restaurants...

and

IC 011: Outdoor cooking appliances, namely, barbecue grills and wood...

 

[JKalchik]

Unfortunately, case law indicates that the trademark holder (the Smoque restaurant in this case,) does have to [aggressively] protect it's trademarks. Additionally, the courts have held that the trademark holder generally cannot decide that it is or is not infringing, if there's the possibility of an overlap, it has to be decided by a court.

As it stands, I don't see how the restaurant can avoid bringing this to court, even if they think it's a waste of time and/or money. If they don't, they do run the risk of losing their trademark due to non-protection.

 

[timothy]

Smoque restaurant has the R sign while Weber uses the TM sign.

 

[Richard S]

I know what horse I have in this race Seems a little picky to me to compare a small restaurant to a product from a large company. And I don’t think “smoque” is that great of a name to even matter. Too bad…

 

[timothy]

And I don’t think “smoque” is that great of a name to even matter.

IDK, but smoke spelled with a Q (or in this case a qu) is kinda singular and goes with BBQ.

 

[DanHoo]

Again, I'm not a patent / trademark attorney, but here are some of my random thoughts.

the restaurant has a wordmark in this class:
Class 043
100 101.
G & S: IC 043: restaurant services, restaurant and bar services, restaurants featuring home delivery, restaurant carry-out services and catering services.


Weber has a wordmark in this class

Class 011
013 021 023 024 031 034.
G & S: IC 011: Outdoor cooking appliances, namely, barbecue grills and wood pellet grills.

There is precedence for wordmarks being approved across classes.

 

[timothy]

And that's why we have lawyers, and courts and judges.

 

[Timothy F. Lewis]

And that's why we have lawyers, and courts and judges.

Well…..

Anyway, it’s like a tornado and a divorce…”somebody is going to lose a trailer”!

 

[JKalchik]

The restaurant is fearing a "dilution" (I think that's the proper legal term) of it's mark, in that they are a barbecue restaurant that very specifically is not using pellet grills such as Weber's product. The audience on this website is clearly aware of the difference, but we're not the issue. The issue is the mass market. I can see where such a confusion may arise.

I think that this is also an issue that's effectively getting magnified by modern communications. 50 years ago, I couldn't have named a single restaurant in Chicago. I can now, as well as some noted restaurants in most major metropolitan areas. That sort of data just wasn't available historically.