God bless the metro -- a perfect reading outlet. Anyhoo--
The recipe argument will probably be a lose--absent strict controls on her part, the odds of her successfully showing that it was a true secret (ala the Coke Recipe) are likely slim to none. And we all know there is no such thing as a copyright in a recipe... However, this might encourage her to get wise and start having her sous chefs sign NDAs from now on... ;) On the larger issue, which the NYT stupidly designates under the broad umbrella of intellectual property *sigh*, I think she actually might have a case (at least under U.S. law). Not sure if this translates over to other areas of the world, but U.S. law does recognize a right of "trade dress" protection in the look, feel, and signature of one's business. That is, if she can prove that the look and feel of the Pearl (e.g., the paint, pictures and chotchkeys, artistic elements, color and placement, etc.,) has created a secondary meaning or impression, and Mr. McFarlan has created something that would be confusingly similar to that, she might actually succeed. Very similar to trademark law, except that there's an added bonus that the elements that will be protected not have a "primarily functional" aspect (in other words, she's unlikely to protect things like fishtanks and other practical paraphenilia you'd generally expect to see in a seafood joint). I write on these cases quite a bit for work, so there have been cases (including examples in the restaurant context), where the plaintiff was successful. C ** On 6/27/07, Badri Natarajan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But it's a hard sell, to claim originality to a recipe but again, the > article does reference a recipe that could possibly have claim to > being a trade secret, no matter how it was acquired. I'll let the > legal minds answer this. Come now, Gautam..you're a legal mind. Or were those five years wasted..:-) B PS - On my very quick scan of the article, I doubt it would qualify as a trade secret.
