Thinking about opening a restaurant?

B

BrooklynQ

Guest
Then you better make sure you have the rights to the name. This was in the Manville News, a Jersey paper. RUB in NY is Paul Kirk and Andrew Fischel's restaurant. the RUB Hut in NJ is owned by the folks from Ribs Within.

Knowing the parties involved, and I'm not taking sides, but it's interesting to see how RUB NY is portrayed as the big corporate monster and RUB Hut is portrayed as the little guy with a Mexican restaurant, not the BBQ joint Ribs Within claims it to be.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mexican BBQ restaurant — The R.U.B. Hut — is asking customers and local residents for suggestions.

Michael and Melanie Johnston's North Main Street Mexican BBQ restaurant — The R.U.B. Hut — seems to be rubbing attorneys for a Manhattan eatery the wrong way.

Now, they're forced to change the name and they're asking customers and local residents for suggestions for a new name by late December.

The winner will receive a free dinner for four.

Mr. Johnston said he and his wife opened up R.U.B. Hut on North Main Street in August 2005 but two and a half months after their grand opening, the owners received a letter from a Manhattan BBQ restaurant claiming the trademark RUB.

"We had just put up a coming soon sign and started hiring staff," Mr. Johnston said. "One of the waitresses said she was watching the Food Network and saw that a New York City restaurant just opened called Rub BBQ."

Mr. Johnston said he and his wife picked the name R.U.B. Hut because rub are the spices put on meat while hut has more of a Mexican feel to it. The name is an acronym for "Real Unique BBQ."

Mr. Johnston said before picking the name R.U.B. Hut for his restaurant, he researched online for any other registered restaurants with the name "Rub" but no matches were found.

"We researched the name but nothing came up besides cleaning supplies," Mr. Johnston said. "We researched BBQ names, too, but Rub Hut never showed up. If something would've came up as rub we would've thought of it as a conflict of interest."

As a restaurant, the Manville owners had to have their trademark approved by a governmental business agency — which they did — but other companies have 30 days to challenge that name.

"If no one challenges that name then it's yours," Mr. Johnston said.

On the 29th day, the Manhattan restaurant Rub BBQ opposed and challenged the Manville restaurant's name.

"In November 2005 we got a certified letter from Fed-Ex that said 'we're gonna sue you,' Mr. Johnston said. "It cost us $7,000 just to do legal paperwork."

After receiving the letter, Mr. Johnston researched Rub BBQ in Manhattan to find out information about the restaurant but he said he couldn't find anything.

"We couldn't find it registered in New York State or city so we searched the address of the restaurant," Mr. Johnston said. "The restaurant name never showed up. Instead, the parent company did — Global BBQ LLC."

Mr. Johnston said his restaurant had an option to go to trial with Rub BBQ for $3,000 a day in legal fees but he said it wasn't worth it. He said the trial could last anywhere from one to two weeks at that price.

"Did we want to spend $32,000 to be right?" Mr. Johnston asked. "We reached a mutual, amicable agreement and we decided to change our name. It's usually the party with the most money that wins."

So far, Mr. Johnston received a stack of 400 possible new names for his restaurant including Baja BBQ, MexiQ, Ten Gallon Taco, Grub Hut, Sassafras and Mike and Melanie's BBQ Hut.

"We have till Jan. 31 to get most of the changes done," Mr. Johnston said. "We have to change our signs, menus, shirts, IRS forms and anything else surrounding the store."

Mr. Johnston said it will probably cost his business in excess of $20,000 to make the changes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You know this is the stuff that gets me pissed. Like they have a big threat of getting the two restaraunts confussed or something. So we have to go after the little guy, sounds like they did everything right and now its the battle of who has the most money to burn. I guess peoples true intent and character come to light when money is involved.
 
That's why I like KickAssBBQ. Ain't nobody gonna use that stupid name!!! And, I own that name, at least in MN. Got the papers to prove it.
Smoke On!!!!!!
 
Robert, do you know Paul Kirk? I just wondered what his take is on this. I have alot of respect for Paul and all he has accomplished in the BBQ world, but its things like this that have you scratching your head and wonder if people truely let things go to there head and forget there roots and the things that got them where they are today.
 
Rockaway BeachBQ said:
http://www.rubhut.com/
vs.
http://www.rubbbq.net/ which has been under construction since the place opened, but is still better than
http://www.rubbbq.com/ it seems they have their priorities all screwed up

www.rubbq.com is a domain squater. The R.U.B. restaurant probably didn't want to pay the squater for the domain so they bought .NET because it was available. Happens all of the time.

They could change the name to "Derick Jeter's Taco Hole".
 
Anyone know what Paul's stake or role in the R.U.B. business is? I was so surprised when I saw the ad in the BullSheet last year. Paul just doesn't seem like the business type or the the type that can survive in the toughest restaurant environment in America. I realize that he's got some NY types involved, but I kinda imagine that someone went looking for a name and found Paul at one of these Big Apple BBQ block parties.
 
Bigmista said:
Do people in New York often mistake Mnahattan for New Jersey?

Duh.... What's a New Jersey? It is hard to confuse the two. Manhattan is an island (the bridges and tunnels are the give-away) and New Jersey isn't....

Hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving.
 
I read most of this thread before I responded. I'm not for or against anyone here. Having said that, if R.U.B. didn't persue these folks for infringing on their name, in effect, they would lose the right to go after the next group, and it may have been a much, much bigger deal. However unfortunate this specific situation, they really had no choice. If you snooze, you lose . . . .

Rod
 
kcpellethead said:
I read most of this thread before I responded. I'm not for or against anyone here. Having said that, if R.U.B. didn't persue these folks for infringing on their name, in effect, they would lose the right to go after the next group, and it may have been a much, much bigger deal. However unfortunate this specific situation, they really had no choice. If you snooze, you lose . . . .

Rod

You are absolutely right, Rod. You'll have a hard time defending any trademark infringement if you let one pass. I help lead much of our company's corporate brand management and we spend a lot of money, time and energy defending our name.
 
I'm certainly not one to defend PK but if the other guy knew about it before he was open and during the 30 day period then why did he even spend a dime fighting it? The name was taken. Get over it and get a new name before you open the door.
 
Bossman, I don't really know any of the parties very well. I've met, eaten, drank and BS'd will all of them. I've heard both sides of the story from the mouths of both sides. But, not from PK, just his partner Andrew. I know PK least of all.

And, since someone is bound to ask, I don't know the financial details of PK's ownership of RUB, and if I did I wouldn't say. If they wanted that public, they could/would make it public.

But Rod and Ray are right, RUB needed to defend its name and corporate image. I may be naive, but the article portrayed RUB as a big corporate entity going after the little Mom & Pop local restaurant. I don't really see much difference between the two places.
 
BrooklynQ said:
Bossman, I don't really know any of the parties very well. I've met, eaten, drank and BS'd will all of them. I've heard both sides of the story from the mouths of both sides. But, not from PK, just his partner Andrew. I know PK least of all.

And, since someone is bound to ask, I don't know the financial details of PK's ownership of RUB, and if I did I wouldn't say. If they wanted that public, they could/would make it public.

But Rod and Ray are right, RUB needed to defend its name and corporate image. I may be naive, but the article portrayed RUB as a big corporate entity going after the little Mom & Pop local restaurant. I don't really see much difference between the two places.

I agree Robert, I think they were looking out for there interest. Just goes to show if you have a good idea get the copywright to it and hold it close. Other then the word RUB, I see very little that would be a direct threat to either of them.
 
Back
Top