BLT v. LT Burger

[Holly Moore]

In Who's Menu Is It? the New York Times reports on a lawsuit brought by BLT against LT Burger in Sag Harbor.

BLT alleges LT Burger owner Laurent Tourondel, who helped open BLT, among other grievances, has copied much of BLTs menu. The article cites examples some similar, some kinda weak. But that's besides the point.

What next? Manna v Mana? White Castle v. Royal Castle? Texas Wieners v Texas Wieners? What is the damage? Will city workers helicopter to Sag Harbor for lunch? I can't see savvy New Yorkers being confused with BLT and LT Burger. Did LT steal a proprietary recipe in serving a burger without a bun?

Tis a ridiculous law suit. Maybe Tourondel should counter sue for the return of his initials.

Edited September 1, 2010 by Holly Moore (log)

[IndyRob]

There’s BLT’s $7 Twinkie Boy milk shake with Twinkies and caramel syrup and LT’s $7 Twinkie milk shake with Twinkies and caramel syrup; BLT’s $12 Stripper burger with no bun and LT’s $12 Skinny Dip Burger with no bun; BLT’s No. 3 combo of Classic burger, fries and draft beer for $17 and LT’s No. 3 combo of Classic Hamburger, fries and draft beer for $18; BLT’s $11 Grandma’s Treat Spiked Milkshake and LT’s $11 Daisy Dukes Rated ‘R’ Shake, each with Maker’s Mark bourbon, caramel and vanilla ice cream.

I don't know all the facts or the law, but on its face it seems like a legitimate claim.

I'm not a savvy New Yorker (if that's a legal standard) but I was a little confused as to who was who just reading this story ("Wait, isn't BLT 'Bistro Laurent Tourondel? Oh, they must have split. He just dropped the B?")

[stealw]

Laurent actually left the company, BLT, a few months back. In doing so, I believe he forfeited his previous royalties to the restaurants & the name. So in making LT Burger - and the "infringements" that are brought upon him do makes sense.

Nonetheless, if one were to make such a similar concept, at least mix up the menu so it wasn't so clearly identical.

[Kouign Aman]

There’s BLT’s $7 Twinkie Boy milk shake with Twinkies and caramel syrup and LT’s $7 Twinkie milk shake with Twinkies and caramel syrup; ....BLT’s $11 Grandma’s Treat Spiked Milkshake and LT’s $11 Daisy Dukes Rated ‘R’ Shake, each with Maker’s Mark bourbon, caramel and vanilla ice cream.

These two are pretty clear copy-cat.

BLT’s $12 Stripper burger with no bun and LT’s $12 Skinny Dip Burger with no bun;

Since the advent of Adkin's, who can claim a bunless burger is proprietary? Even the drive-thrus offer them.

BLT’s No. 3 combo of Classic burger, fries and draft beer for $17 and LT’s No. 3 combo of Classic Hamburger, fries and draft beer for $18;

Yeah, because these are the only two restaurants in the country that sell burger, fries and beverage as a combo, tho granted the beer choice isnt ubiquitous. Stupid (or arrogant) to call it Combo #3, I suppose.

He signed a deal, then thumbed his nose. Dumb deal, dumber to pretend it didnt exist.

Lots of knock-off ideas out there - how about a Debbie's Crumbcake shake?

[Holly Moore]

I checked the menu. The ingredients are listed with each dish so it is not exactly proprietary information. As long as the names aren't copied I don't see how there is basis for a law suit.

I put in two years for Burger King Corp. doing regional marketing for NYC. If I open a restaurant selling a broiled burger, topped with lettuce, tomato, onion, mayo and pickle, can Burger King sue me as long as I don't call it a Whopper? What if I added french fries, shakes and soda?

I also Googled LT Burger. With the exception of articles about the law suit, in the first few pages at least, Google was not confused - it only presented info on LT and not BLT.

Edited September 2, 2010 by Holly Moore (log)

[Florida]

Everything here is based on speculation.

According to the complaint "This action is for breach of contract, trademark infringement, and deceptive business practices."

None of us have the contract, so none of us can say whether there is a breach of contract. Maybe yes, maybe no. As for the trademark infringement, the standard is whether "a likelihood of confusion exists." According to the complaint "the defendants have infringed the plaintiff's trademark and deceived the public by opening a restaurant that mimics plaintiff's well known line of restaurants." Considering the above posts and BLT's allegations there could very well be enough "confusion" as to award damages for trademark infringement. I personally can't say either way.

Whether you agree with it or not, the suit has merit. This clearly isn't one of those "I was wrongly injured while taking a bath with my hair dryer" suits.