"db" stands for Daniel Boulud--not Danny Brown
How did this happen? I go away for a long weekend and miss the biggest controversy to hit the Forest Hills food scene since Lidia Bastianich left to take on Manhattan in 1981.
For months, Queens bloggers—myself included—have been championing DB (Danny Brown) Wine Bar & Kitchen, the best restaurant in the culinary wasteland that is Forest Hills. Save for a glowing review in Time Out New York, however, this out-of-the-way joint on drab Metropolitan Avenue has been roundly ignored by the mainstream media.
Last week that changed. Quite suddenly. But chef/owner Danny Brown isn't in the spotlight for his juicy, crisp-skinned chicken-under-a-brick, nor for his silken pork loin. No, what finally brought The New York Times calling is this: celebrated mega-chef and veteran bully Daniel Boulud has threatened to sue Danny Brown over the use of their shared initials in his restaurant's logo. The primary issue seems to be the similarity of Danny Brown's logo to that of Boulud's DB Bistro Moderne—both feature "db" in lowercase. But they use completely different fonts and in Danny Brown's case, the "db" is underlined and enclosed in a circle.
The letter to Danny Brown from Boulud's lawyers, as quoted in the Times, asserts that the "prominence of the 'db' mark in your logo and as displayed in your restaurant canopy can only be viewed as a deliberate attempt to trade off on my client's famous 'db' mark." Anyone who has actually been to DB Wine Bar would dismiss this allegation outright. There is simply no question the place is Danny Brown's. His full name is displayed prominently on the menu, and the man himself is a highly visible presence in the restaurant, whether working in the open kitchen or chatting with diners. Plus, his parents are always there, helping out and greeting customers. It's a family-run, neighborhood place, and Danny Brown—who in person is supremely modest and down-to-earth—has never pretended that it is anything but.
What if Danny Brown were to change the logo to "D.B." or "DB"? That may not be enough to satisfy Boulud and his lawyers. In his second blog post about the debacle, Frank Bruni of the Times said "[Boulud's attorney] suggested that capital letters wouldn't go far enough, because the sound of D.B. spelled that way is the same as the sound of db, so the initials, when uttered, could give the impression that they were discussing a restaurant affiliated with DB Bistro Moderne and Daniel Boulud." Now, even if Boulud has a valid case concerning the lowercase "db" logo, for him to claim exclusive rights to the letters "D" and "B" seems to be overreaching just a bit—not to mention dreadfully arrogant. And let's not forget that the other guy's name isn't, say, Fred Green. It's Danny Brown.
Boulud's lawyer also told Bruni, "[DB Wine Bar] isn't of the same caliber as Daniel Boulud, and that's actually a problem. If someone thinks that's associated with Daniel Boulud, then that tends to tarnish a brand." And he goes on: "Imagine if a shop opens in Queens called Saks, a retail store called Saks that sells much lower-rent stuff. Is it possible someone will think it's related to Saks? Yeah. Is it possible that people will think Saks has opened a lower-end Wal-Mart-type store? Sure."
Okay, he's right to an extent. Danny Brown is not Daniel Boulud. But he has never claimed to be. The two restaurants have different names, different logos, different menus and styles, and are located in different boroughs. Take a look at DB Wine Bar's Web site, and you'll see that the name "Danny Brown Wine Bar & Kitchen" is spelled out in big letters right next to the logo. And the Saks/Wal-Mart analogy is grossly unfair and uninformed. As Steve of Queens Central so perfectly put it: "These comments strongly imply that Danny Brown is your typical Queens pasta mill, with mediocre buffet nights once a week and a terrible piano player struggling through Celine Dion covers." In fact, DB Wine Bar is an excellent neighborhood restaurant much loved and valued by the residents of Forest Hills. Please, just let us eat in peace.
Categories: Miscellaneous Stuff, Outer-Borough Eats
Technorati Tags: danny brown, daniel boulud, db bistro moderne, db wine bar & kitchen, forest hills, new york, restaurants
Wow, this just makes me really not want to eat at Daniel Boulud's place (though I did have an interest prior to reading this... and I've seen him on TV, he always seemed like a nice chef - as opposed to certain arrogant a-hole male "celebrity" chefs we all know who they are...). Sheesh. Get over yourself first of all and second of all, are you kidding me?!?!?!? Thanks for the informative byte...
Hmm. As a person who has a federally registered trademark and a trademark attorney, I can kinda hear in my head what Daniel Boulud's attorney told him. It probably went something like this, "Just as too many people trespassing on property over time will diminish the claim to the land, so too, unimpeded use of trademarks by unauthorized third parties will dilute trademark rights." (- cribbed from the Ladas & Perry website) Whoever owned the actual ORIGINAL Ray's Pizza would probably understand.
Hi Yvo--For all I know, he is a nice guy in person--I just feel like he's being a bit of a bully in this matter. (That certainly wouldn't keep me from jumping on an opportunity to eat at one of his restaurants, though.)
Hi Corgi--I understand completely and agree that trademarks should be protected. But did Danny Brown violate Boulud's trademark? I confess to being absolutely biased in this matter--I've met the guy (Brown, not Boulud) and visit his restaurant at least once a month. But precisely because I do know his restaurant well, I can say with some certainty that he is not trying to "trade off on [Boulud's] famous 'db' mark,"as the Boulud letter stated, or be anyone other than who he is, for that matter. Of course, intent probably has little to do with it--if the logo looks the same, it is a violation. I (again, completely biased) am inclined to side with Danny Brown, as the only similarity between the logos are that they consist of "db" in lowercase letters--they use different fonts and Danny Brown's is underlined and circled.
And the lowercase logo issue aside, what about the Boulud lawyer's suggestion that Danny Brown should not be allowed to use his initials at all? I mean, doesn't that seem a bit absurd?
I've been to Danny Brown's place a number of times myself and I like it quite a bit. Nonetheless, I think this case is pretty much open and shut. I don't think anyone really thinks Danny Brown is trying to "trade off" Boulud's name, that just lawyering in action. Danny Brown just made the mistake of not doing a trademark search prior to naming his business.
The logos are certainly similar enough to be confusing and the names (especially in print) are also pretty close. If Daniel Boulud allows this to continue, it's like throwing away all the money he invested in developing, designing, registering and promoting his logo. With the way trademark law works, he pretty much HAS to jump on this with both feet.
Put it this way. If you happened to be named Kenneth Franklin Clark and you had this terrific fried chicken recipe that your Moms used to make...
When guys like Boulud go into business they usually leave the door open for expansion. db Bistro Moderne Tokyo? Peoria? db frozen gougeres in your grocer's freezer? Why not? That's why he registered the trademark.
As for Danny Brown, I think the choice is pretty clear too. Hiring guys to change the signage and reprint some collaterals is going to be a lot cheaper than hiring a trademark attorney to go mano a mano with Boulud.
Yeah, well, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. As for the logos specifically, yeah, I can see that they're similar. But for him not to be able to use the letters "D" and "B" together at all, well, that seems odd to me--especially considering that db bistro moderne is not the only other food establishment to use these initials (one of the commentors on one of the Times blog posts listed a bunch of other places). Maybe for Boulud, this is just the start of a worldwide, DB-quashing rampage . . .
First, I have my doubts that the guy who claims he has a trademark really understands the issue.
The legal litmus test for these situations is pretty simple: Are the two parties in the same industry and could a reasonable person be confused by the similarity?
It doesn't matter what Brown's intent was. The logos are nearly identical and they are not only in the same industry, but the same city.
Also, Boulud is obligated to protect his trademark, even if he doesn't think Brown is out to steal business from him under false pretenses. That's because trademark cases rely heavily on the history of violations, and failure on the part of a trademark owner to enforce could easily cause a subsequent infringement claim to be invalidated. Let's say Boulud doesn't issue a cease and desist to Brown. Next year someone else packages a product with a nearly identical logo and creates some marketing situations that use Boulud's brand to generate sales. His case against this entity is hurt.
Likewise, what happens if Brown expands and branches out into other areas or locations?