Paramount Launches Lawsuit Against Starship Subs
May 16, 1995 | By Joanne von Alroth.
Special to the Tribune.
After running Starship Subs in Forest Park for nearly 18 years and opening a second shop in Roselle last year, many people would think Paul McKenna and Henry Laskowski were pretty enterprising guys.But Paramount Pictures Corp. is inclined to disagree.
The movie giant has filed a lawsuit against McKenna and Laskowski's company, "Starship Enterprises Inc.," in U.S. District Court in Chicago, alleging that the name infringes on "Star Trek" trademarks.
McKenna said it isn't his fault that he and Laskowski have boldly gone where no sandwich maker has gone before.
"At the time we named the place, Star Trek was just a canceled TV show," McKenna said Friday. "The show was popular, but Jefferson Starship was popular too. We just thought it was a good name. And we're not a theme shop. Our sandwiches are called things like the Crazy Club, the Beefeater, the Starship. We're just about good food, not a TV show. The only place you even see our company name is on our business checks."
There are Star Trek photos and figurines from the series on the shop's walls, but they are interspersed with other science fiction characters.
Paramount's lawsuit, filed last month, seeks to have the partners discontinue using the "Starship Enterprises Inc." and "Starship Enterprises Inc. II" for their shops at 7618 Madison St. in Forest Park and 641 N. Roselle Rd. in Roselle.
In addition, the corporation wants any business cards, unused invoices and stationery with the name Starship Enterprises impounded and destroyed, and seeks unspecified damages from McKenna and Laskowski.
"Paramount and its goodwill reputation will suffer irreparable injury," if the local shops continue to use the name, according to the suit.
Although Paramount has held the trademark on "Star Trek"-related materials since 1991, the partners have used the Starship Enterprises name since 1977. Still, McKenna said, the pair won't "Klingon" to the company name if they can avoid a battle of intergalactic proportions.
"As long as we can keep the name of the restaurants, because that's how our customers know us, we wouldn't have a problem changing the company name," he said.
Viacom, Paramount's parent company, reportedly agreed that a name change would suffice, but said it also wanted $3,000 from the partners to pay for legal fees.
"For me, $3,000 is a whole week's worth of receipts. For Paramount, that's just a corporate lunch," McKenna said.
Even more disturbing "is the fact that no one from the company ever came into the shops to investigate whether there really was any connection with the series," he said.
The partners received one letter from Viacom last fall, ordering them to stop using the name, and were told by their attorney to ignore the letter unless further communications were sent. Viacom says there were other letters; the partners say no.
Attorneys from the Chicago law firm Susman, Saunders & Buehler, who are representing Viacom in the suit, could not be reached for comment.
Cases of corporate giants vigorously defending their trademark names against use by small businesses are not unusual.
McDonald's Corp. chased after Oak Park's "Leaps and Bounds," a non-profit exercise program for children and their parents, in the early 1990s when the company decided to use the name for its own indoor play areas, even though the Oak Park establishment had the name first.
In 1993, Dallas-based Kidco filed suit against McDonald's, claiming it had operated two shoe stores in Texas under the "Leaps and Bounds" name before McDonald's took the name.
In 1991, Sears, Roebuck and Co. rebuked a Naperville hair salon for calling its establishment "Shears Tower." More recently, Playboy Inc. sued Bunny Brown's, a west suburban tavern whose logo resembled the corporation's "Bunny" logo.
Like many small business people involved in such disputes, McKenna said he feels victimized by a corporate behemoth. Yet he acknowledged that this latest incident has its humorous side.
"We could change the name to Capt. Kirk's," he joked. Unless the two sides can agree soon, their court date is May 25."
Check out the above article in its original location here.
Special to the Tribune.
After running Starship Subs in Forest Park for nearly 18 years and opening a second shop in Roselle last year, many people would think Paul McKenna and Henry Laskowski were pretty enterprising guys.But Paramount Pictures Corp. is inclined to disagree.
The movie giant has filed a lawsuit against McKenna and Laskowski's company, "Starship Enterprises Inc.," in U.S. District Court in Chicago, alleging that the name infringes on "Star Trek" trademarks.
McKenna said it isn't his fault that he and Laskowski have boldly gone where no sandwich maker has gone before.
"At the time we named the place, Star Trek was just a canceled TV show," McKenna said Friday. "The show was popular, but Jefferson Starship was popular too. We just thought it was a good name. And we're not a theme shop. Our sandwiches are called things like the Crazy Club, the Beefeater, the Starship. We're just about good food, not a TV show. The only place you even see our company name is on our business checks."
There are Star Trek photos and figurines from the series on the shop's walls, but they are interspersed with other science fiction characters.
Paramount's lawsuit, filed last month, seeks to have the partners discontinue using the "Starship Enterprises Inc." and "Starship Enterprises Inc. II" for their shops at 7618 Madison St. in Forest Park and 641 N. Roselle Rd. in Roselle.
In addition, the corporation wants any business cards, unused invoices and stationery with the name Starship Enterprises impounded and destroyed, and seeks unspecified damages from McKenna and Laskowski.
"Paramount and its goodwill reputation will suffer irreparable injury," if the local shops continue to use the name, according to the suit.
Although Paramount has held the trademark on "Star Trek"-related materials since 1991, the partners have used the Starship Enterprises name since 1977. Still, McKenna said, the pair won't "Klingon" to the company name if they can avoid a battle of intergalactic proportions.
"As long as we can keep the name of the restaurants, because that's how our customers know us, we wouldn't have a problem changing the company name," he said.
Viacom, Paramount's parent company, reportedly agreed that a name change would suffice, but said it also wanted $3,000 from the partners to pay for legal fees.
"For me, $3,000 is a whole week's worth of receipts. For Paramount, that's just a corporate lunch," McKenna said.
Even more disturbing "is the fact that no one from the company ever came into the shops to investigate whether there really was any connection with the series," he said.
The partners received one letter from Viacom last fall, ordering them to stop using the name, and were told by their attorney to ignore the letter unless further communications were sent. Viacom says there were other letters; the partners say no.
Attorneys from the Chicago law firm Susman, Saunders & Buehler, who are representing Viacom in the suit, could not be reached for comment.
Cases of corporate giants vigorously defending their trademark names against use by small businesses are not unusual.
McDonald's Corp. chased after Oak Park's "Leaps and Bounds," a non-profit exercise program for children and their parents, in the early 1990s when the company decided to use the name for its own indoor play areas, even though the Oak Park establishment had the name first.
In 1993, Dallas-based Kidco filed suit against McDonald's, claiming it had operated two shoe stores in Texas under the "Leaps and Bounds" name before McDonald's took the name.
In 1991, Sears, Roebuck and Co. rebuked a Naperville hair salon for calling its establishment "Shears Tower." More recently, Playboy Inc. sued Bunny Brown's, a west suburban tavern whose logo resembled the corporation's "Bunny" logo.
Like many small business people involved in such disputes, McKenna said he feels victimized by a corporate behemoth. Yet he acknowledged that this latest incident has its humorous side.
"We could change the name to Capt. Kirk's," he joked. Unless the two sides can agree soon, their court date is May 25."
Check out the above article in its original location here.