faberge

Faberge Lounge at 2007 Emmons Avenue is being sued by the 159-year-old luxury jewelry company of the same name for using its image and trademarked name in a “shameless” attempt to misappropriate the brand.

The suit, filed in Brooklyn Federal Court, alleges that the restaurant is using the name without permission to get a “free-ride” on their reputation. In addition to using the name, the restaurant has duplicated the jewelry business’ iconic purple and gold storefront stylings.

Faberge, the jewelry company born of the House of Faberge in 1855 that invented the famed ornamental eggs for Tsar Alexander III, claims that the restaurant is also flooding search engine results with ads for the restaurant, according to the Daily News.

The restaurant’s owners say it’s much ado about nothing, since they’re clearly not selling anything connected to the jewelry company.

They told the New York Post:

But owner [Vladislav] Yusufova ripped the lawsuit as ridiculous.

“We don’t sell eggs here,” he said. “We don’t sell jewelry. We sell French food in Sheepshead Bay. I don’t know why they are coming after us. I haven’t broken any laws here in America.”

Yusufova, originally from Azerbaijan, said that his lawyers would soon be in contact with Faberge’s legal team to sort out the mess. “We have this name legally, and we have nothing to do with them,” he said, noting that he’s been open for a year.

The restaurant opened in September 2013, replacing Fusion. It’s owned by the same people behind Signature, the restaurant next door that replaced Tzar. Tzar and Fusion were both shuttered after Superstorm Sandy ravaged the property.

Related posts

  • jmh

    Sue Cherry Hill market..they sell “russian” eggs

  • Arthur Borko

    Hah, oh my….

    I guess he doesn’t quite realize that what he’s doing IS illegal.

    • sadeyes

      I hope the Real Faberge wins. I think they will.

      • A

        They probably will. This could be a trademark issue. A lot of people who start businesses don’t realize that you need to do a trademark search first. Someone doesn’t necessarily need the exact same name registered, a small similarity is enough to take them to court.

        Whatever the case, Fabergé is just trying to protect their brand. It’s all business.

        This case reminds me of a day care place called “Buddy’s Clues”, originally named “Blue’s Clues” mentioned here – http://www.sheepsheadbites.com/2009/11/new-sheepshead-bay-day-care-opens-today/.

        I wonder why they changed the name..

  • BayResident

    What do you mean…. this is totally different, there is clearly no accent over the E. Only the uncultured locals would ever confuse this for the House of Fabergé! /sarcasm

    I also always wondered what the Eiffel Tower had to do with anything. Turns out they’re calling what they serve “French Food”.

  • ShadowLock

    i don’t see how it’s the same………. the name is the same minus the little thing over the E

    • BayResident

      From the Daily News article. I’d say its pretty identical.

  • One of the guests

    Even if it’s identically the same name, they can do business if they’re in different industries. You can ahead and sell Boeing sandwiches… In terms of looks I’m not sure.

  • Andrew Kent

    Even though their products and services are different, given the trend in branding diversification, it would not be unreasonable for someone seeing the name and graphic similarities to conclude that the businesses were connected, thus creating the confusion in the marketplace required to support an infringement suit. Also, under the use it or lose it requirements of trademark management, and the risk of “laches,” the equitable defense that the aggrieved plaintiff has slept on his rights too long, the owners of intellectual property must constantly police the use or misuse of their protected names and marks, lest they suffer “trademark dilution” or, even worse, fall into the public domain due to third party use.

    • Andrew Kent
    • Supporter of Left Hand Rule

      Likely is that FAB will settle and win. The gent Andrew Kent is correct on all points. Legal trivia note is that Disney is the most aggressive company to protect its brand. Just ask many Day Care centers that tried to use Mickey Mouse and pals as wall decorations and Disney found out.

    • jmh

      Its much worse with music…All the bands that play cover songs..however you can use a song title any time ex Heartbreaker..Led Zep Heartbreaker Pat Benatar etc..

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

        Personally, I wish that song titles could be copyrighted, if only to make things less confusing. Someone could write a bunch of songs with titles that are those of classic tunes and some people will buy thinking they are getting new interpretations.

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

  • jmh

    If that were the case no business could ever use the name Nathan’s no matter what they sold….now if the name happened to be Smuckers ???

  • Puten

    It’s all ridiculous really

  • Pingback: Media Rundown: Brooklyn in the News (06.06.14) : Brooklyn Brief

  • Metsknicks

    A lawsuit was the first thing I thought when I saw the signage for the restaurant.

  • EndofDaze

    Bob Guccione, the owner of the magazine,sued the owners of the late great and seminal Penthouse-Pastels Discotheque over their use of the name Penthouse! Guccione lost! Nonetheless, some of us miss, that Bay Ridge Penthouse greatly, and their late co owner, who was a mensch, if there ever was one!!!