Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, November 2, 1993 TAG: 9311020098
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: LAURENCE HAMMACK STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
In a trademark infringement lawsuit filed Monday, Hooters Inc. claimed that a Roanoke restaurant of a similar name is cutting into its business.
Hooters of Virginia Inc., which opened on Franklin Road Southwest in September, is accused of using unfair business practices.
Both the Roanoke Hooters and the national chain are perhaps best known for their buxom waitresses in skimpy outfits - the kind of name-recognition that the national Hooters wants all for itself.
"By any measure, Hooters is one of the better known service marks in the United States at this time," attorneys for Hooters Inc. maintained in the lawsuit.
With 114 locations, Hooters Inc. has grossed $717 million since its first restaurant opened 10 years ago. The chain is requesting an injunction barring the Roanoke restaurant from using its name and is seeking to collect all of its Hooters-related profits.
But the case of Hooters vs. Hooters is also about image, attorneys say.
"While the Hooters chain is certainly well-known for its buxom waitresses dressed in scanty outfits, it has nonetheless cultivated a healthy and responsible public image," attorneys for Hooters say.
To do that, the lawsuit states, the chain "relies on a fine-tuned mixture of bawdiness and wholesomeness to produce an incredible reservoir of marketing goodwill."
That "wholesome and healthy" image is lacking at the Roanoke Hooters, the chain asserts.
The lawsuit raises concerns that the chain will become associated with the Roanoke restaurant. In a Roanoke Times & World-News story cited in the lawsuit, the local Hooters was described by one patron as less family-oriented and less respectable.
The suit also notes that Billy Harbour, owner of the Roanoke restaurant, has been convicted of bankruptcy fraud.
"Given Mr. Harbour's local reputation," the lawsuit states, Hooters Inc. is entitled to avoid the public impression that it is in business "with a businessman previously convicted of a scheme to defraud creditors."
Harbour could not be reached for comment Monday. His attorney, Frank Perkinson, also could not be reached.
Perkinson has said earlier that Hooters of Virginia is not violating a trademark, stressing the "of Virginia, Inc." in its name. Perkinson also has pointed out the business has been registered by the State Corporation Commission.
In a letter to attorneys for Hooters Inc., Perkinson argued that the two businesses are different in many respects.
"The word hooters apparently has several definitions," he wrote. "It appears from most of your client's trademark designs the name Hooters is in reference to the call of an owl. I am not certain as to what connotation my client uses for the word."
by CNB