Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Market Corner Realty Associates, LLC v. CGM-GH LLC
Citations: 317 F. Supp. 2d 485; 71 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1061; 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8483; 2004 WL 1084778Docket: 04 CV 26447(RO)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York; May 12, 2004; Federal District Court
Plaintiffs Market Corner Realty Associates, LLC and Tadashi Ono seek a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants CGM-GH LLC and Jeffrey Chodorow from using the name "Ono" for their restaurant. The plaintiffs assert superior trademark rights based on a U.S. trademark application filed shortly before the defendants announced their restaurant and claim actual use of the name "Ono" in connection with a section of their restaurant named the "Ono Sake Room." However, evidence of this usage is limited; a small banner indicating the name was not displayed until five months after the restaurant's opening, and a former employee testified that the room was never referred to as "Ono" during their employment. The court highlights that a pending intent-to-use trademark application does not establish priority under the Lanham Act, and actual use must be substantiated. Furthermore, the plaintiffs' argument for trademark rights based on chef Ono's surname is weakened by the lack of demonstrated secondary meaning and the requirement to identify "Ono" as a surname in the trademark application. The court suggests that proving secondary meaning is particularly challenging, given the term's generic connotations and alternative meanings. Defendants commenced the development of their "Ono" restaurant in July 2003, with media coverage beginning in August, including a mention by The Villager on August 6, 2003. By December 2003, they were actively marketing the restaurant through menus, brochures, and promotional materials, as well as soliciting customers for events. The Hotel Ganesvoort, which houses the "Ono Restaurant," opened in March 2004, with the restaurant offering room service starting March 18 and catering services from March 29. The official opening of the restaurant was planned for summer 2004. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to prevent the use of the name "Ono," concluding that any harm to the plaintiffs was minor and self-inflicted, with little likelihood of success on the merits of their case. Additionally, the Trademark Office had initially rejected the plaintiffs' trademark application due to existing prior registrations for "Ono" marks.