Truly original signature dishes?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Gavin - As much as you would like to confuse the issue....

Anything can be a brand as long as you market it as a brand name. And if Fergus marketed his bone marrow salad as a brand name then that's how it would be percieved. But he doesn't communicate his brand by putting the name "Bone Marrow Salad" on a sign above his restaurant with a picture of it. The name of his establishment is St. John whether you like that or not. And if he was to market a brand, it would most likely be associated with St. John or with him. And while Bone Marrow Salad could be a brand if he chose to market it as a brand, I think that champage, confiture, jars of spice etc. would look odd if their labels said "Bone Marrow Salad." Fergus Henderson's Special Blend Champagne is more like it don't you think?

[Gavin Jones]

Isn't the ambiguity already in the term 'signature dishes'.

If the dish is the autograph, then it is surely implicit in the 'brand' of the author?

[StephenT]

Lots of people have brands that they don't promote and which are very successful. Many of the three star chefs have great reputations, but have not spent much time turning themselves into brands. But then there are chefs who are tireless self promoters like Bocuse, Ducasse and Gordon Ramsey. They have turned their names into brands.

Well in my mind the names of those chefs that have great reputations but don't promote themselves are still brands. They're just not what most people would consider successful brands as they're only known to people who go to their restaurants.

The notion of "a brand" as "a brand that everyone knows because someone spends lots of money and/or energy promoting it" is something that's in common use but that doesn't mean it's the only correct use.

Take hi-fi equipment as an example. Only people who are really into it know the top-end brands that will set you back many thousands of Dollars for a single component. But that doesn't mean that they're not brands.

As I said in the beginning, that's how I see it. Arguments over what exactly what "brand" means are unlikely to change that

[Steve Plotnicki]

Gavin - Being implicit in the brand is not the same as the brand itself. For example, the Troisgros family can get a trademark for the name of their restaurant based on it being unique. But they cannot get a trademark for the name of the dish "Saumon en sauce d'Oiselle" because there is nothing distinctive about it. Anyone can make salmon with sorrel sauce. But the whole idea of a signature is that someone has made something that is so superior, the use of common words that you are normally not able to protect by law become associated with a brand in a way that it immediately identifies the brand. You might not find that much of a distinction but in a court that distinction would be enormous.

Stephen T. - While your definition is technically correct, when I use the word brand, there is an inference that the people who are offering the brand are trying to promote it to their partilcuar market. If you take food in London, Conran has one type of brand, Gordon Ramsey another. Belgo has a different type. And then you have Chez Bruce which although could be turned into a brand, isn't marketed as a brand at all. No "branding" takes place at Chez Bruce. It's all about letting the food speak for itself.

[Miss J]

No "branding" takes place at Chez Bruce. It's all about letting the food speak for itself.

Hmmm...now we're getting into Brands.

Jaybee, where are you when egullet needs you?

[Fat Guy]

Plotnicki, just so I'm sure I understand this: McDonald's is the brand and the Big Mac or whatever is a signature dish? Or is there more nuance to it?

And you didn't like Georges Blanc? Now I'm definitely voting you off the island. But in terms of the specific point I did a Google search and came up with a lot of results referring to it as "Blanc's famous Bresse chicken with cream and foie gras" and the like. The only dish I saw associated with the Blanc name that has the cream without the foie seems to be the Mere Blanc signature -- maybe the foie was his contribution to the family legacy. I dunno.

[Wilfrid]

David Waltuck. Seafood sausage.

John Villa. Suckling pig.

Keen's. Mutton chop.

Fresh. Halibut cheek and foie gras. Apparently.

Has it occurred to anyone else, reading through this thread, that what we are demonstrating is that there is nothing particularly special or uncommon about signature dishes? I don't know if the majority of well-known chefs/restaurants have them, but a sizeable minority certainly do, at different levels of dining too. My examples above are intended to illustrate the point.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Fat Guy - Yes the Big Mac would be a signature dish of McDonald's. But it is also a trademark of its own. Not the preparation, the name. The name is unique so you can trademark it.

What you can't get a trademark for is a dish called"Grilled New York Strip Steak." Too generic. But you can be famous for serving a great strip steak and it can be your signature dish. The filet mignon of tuna at USC is a good example. Not trademarkable, but identifiable with the restaurant.

Wilfrid - Tne Waltuck seafood sausage is a copy from Taillevent. Though Waltuck is famous for serving his version of the dish.

[hollywood]

Fat Guy - Yes the Big Mac would be a signature dish of McDonald's. But it is also a trademark of its own. Not the preparation, the name. The name is unique so you can trademark it.

I'd consider the fries to be McDonald's signature dish. Acrylamides and all.

[Fat Guy]

Steve, you can trademark a dish name if it's unique, though, right? Like Swordchop. I haven't given it much thought, but I know David Burke holds that trademark and also a few others: Pastrami Salmon, Salmon Bacon, Foie Gras Lollipops. Or are these just BS trademarks that would collapse in litigation?

[hollywood]

Steve, you can trademark a dish name if it's unique, though, right? Like Swordchop™. I haven't given it much thought, but I know David Burke holds that trademark and also a few others: Pastrami Salmon™, Salmon Bacon™, Foie Gras Lollipops™. Or are these just BS trademarks that would collapse in litigation?

You can trademark anything (and in some states I think you can get service marks) but you won't know if it's valid until it's tested in court. There's also a "sacred right" theory that allows you to use your own name for stuff, so if your name was Steak you could try and get protection for that. But your protection would seem to be limited.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Fat Guy - This is one of the rare times that Hollywood got it right. Good work! You can trademark Swordchop because it is a constructed word and that would be entitled to a trademark or possibly a copyright. If nobody ever used the phrase before, there would be no confusion as to what people are talking about the used the phrase. Same with Pastrami Salmon. But you couldn't get a trademark called, "Swordfish steak cut in the shape of a veal chop" or "Salmon that has been smoked and cured like pastrami" any sooner then you could trademark Scrambled Eggs or the world Omelet. Those desriptions don't capture anything unique. They are just plain English and that doesn't qualify as intelectual property. But if you were to bring a product on the market called "Thirty Second Eggs," and it were to describe an instant way of making scrambled eggs or an omelet, that you could get a trademark for.

I assume you have trademarked "Fat Guy." And if you have, that would entitle you to the exclusive use of the phrase. But that wouldn't mean you could stop people from using the phrase in a sentence. "Steve Shaw is a fat guy is english. Steve Shaw is Fat Guy is a trademark.

[Fat Guy]

No I haven't trademarked Fat Guy. Too many lawyers told me I'd never be able to protect it and it would therefore be a waste of money. Is there reason for me to think otherwise, in light of experience you have with this sort of thing?

[hollywood]

You can trademark Swordchop because it is a constructed word and that would be entitled to a trademark or possibly a copyright. If nobody ever used the phrase before, there would be no confusion as to what people are talking about the used the phrase. Same with Pastrami Salmon. But you couldn't get a trademark called, "Swordfish steak cut in the shape of a veal chop" or "Salmon that has been smoked and cured like pastrami" any sooner then you could trademark Scrambled Eggs or the world Omelet. Those desriptions don't capture anything unique. They are just plain English and that doesn't qualify as intelectual property. But if you were to bring a product on the market called "Thirty Second Eggs," and it were to describe an instant way of making scrambled eggs or an omelet, that you could get a trademark for.

A copyright on a name? Sounds dubious. How about Dances with Wolves? Fat Guy, if nobody else has trademarked Fat Guy, I think you could get a mark for that name as a food writer/author. In fact, if you are thinking about doing this, you might factor this into your book, i.e., by Steve Shaw aka Fat Guy. Did you trademark your website name?

[Steve Plotnicki]

I would think that the problem you have is what I mentioned. The common use of the phrase fat guy. But a way around it is to construct a Fat Guy logo and trademark it. The logo will be distinct and unique. Then if you use the two together, it will put someone who wants to use the name in an awkward position because the public will know it's missing. But even without it, I think that you should be able to get a mark for the exclusive purpose of doing restaurant reviews. I can understand how that wouldn't allow you to stop someone from calling their farm "Fat Guy Farms." But what is wrong with narrow protection?

[hollywood]

I would think that the problem you have is what I mentioned. The common use of the phrase fat guy. But a way around it is to construct a Fat Guy logo and trademark it. The logo will be distinct and unique. Then if you use the two together, it will put someone who wants to use the name in an awkward position because the public will know it's missing. But even without it, I think that you should be able to get a mark for the exclusive purpose of doing restaurant reviews. I can understand how that wouldn't allow you to stop someone from calling their farm "Fat Guy Farms." But what is wrong with narrow protection?

Like calling the Michelin guy Bibendum. Steve's idea of a logo is a good idea. That tends to give Fat Guy a "secondary meaning" which is the sina qua non of trademark and unfair competition suits.

[Fat Guy]

I do have a logo.

Do you think it's worth trademarking that logo? I'm just not sure there's a risk of anybody stealing it, especially given the narrow protection a trademark would afford. It's also quite impossible to get magazines and newspapers to put a logo like that in a byline.

[tommy]

dude, that logo is mad phat.

[hollywood]

I do have a logo.

Do you think it's worth trademarking that logo? I'm just not sure there's a risk of anybody stealing it, especially given the narrow protection a trademark would afford. It's also quite impossible to get magazines and newspapers to put a logo like that in a byline.

Is the Pope Catholic? For that matter, is he alive? Why not? You might wanna do merch. Your Fat Guy Guide to.... Your Fat Guy Gourmet Calorie Counter. Your Fat Guy Scale. Your Fat Guy T Shirt (My Folks Got Fat Eating Foie Gras in France. All I Got Was This Lousy Fat Guy T Shirt). Your Fat Guy Goose Fat. Fat Guy Cocoa Butter (covers a multitude). As for papers and magazines, didn't Prince have the same problem when he was TAFKA Prince? But I see he's got GM using his logo on Corvette billboards now.

[Fat Guy]

I have merchandise. I even have boxer shorts:

I suppose I'll trademark the logo if anybody ever gives me money to use it as an endorsement or whatever. Otherwise it's fairly expensive to do a proper trademark so my thinking has been that it isn't worth it. I'd reconsider if presented with a compelling argument, though.

[Wilfrid]

Antoine's in N.O. Oysters Rockefeller. And Oysters Foch.

Caesar Cardini. The Caesar salad. (I looked that up).

Antoine Careme. Lamb chops with Reform Club sauce.

Can someone say when we're allowed to stop?

[Liza]

Permission granted.

[Wilfrid]

Thanks, because I had plans for the weekend.

So, Steve, what does all this tell us?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Fat Guy - The reason your logo isn't worth trademarking is because it isn't really distinct. And it doesn't really have an association with your trade name. Now if you had the right illustration of someone who looked hungry, i.e., that it made people think you were expert in food, it probably would be worth it.

Just because you don't register your mark doesn't mean that you don't have any protection. Everyone has common law protection. I would bet that if another food reviewer came out called Fat Guy, you could stop him. He would have to change his name to "The Other Fat Guy." Even that probably wouldn't work and you could stop him as being confusing. But as I said, not if he was using the name for a diet program.

Trademarks are a funny thing. They really operate on common sense. Take the car Lexus. I could make Lexus computer programmers or a restaurant called Lexus but nothing to do with cars. But I doubt I could call my business Kleenex or Coca Cola regardless of what I did. Those names are too distinct. It would be confusing to everyone if Rotor Rooter changed them name to Coca Cola Plumbing .

[hollywood]

Trademarks are a funny thing. They really operate on common sense. Take the car Lexus. I could make Lexus computer programmers or a restaurant called Lexus but nothing to do with cars. But I doubt I could call my business Kleenex or Coca Cola regardless of what I did. Those names are too distinct. It would be confusing to everyone if Rotor Rooter changed them name to Coca Cola Plumbing  .

Strange that you mention Lexus as I believe they had some dispute with Lexis the legal research site.