18 March 2019Trademarks

Vegan chefs in TM battle against owner of ‘by Chloe’ restaurants

American celebrity chefs Chloe Coscarelli and Tom Colicchio are seeking a declaratory judgment that their new vegan pop up restaurant does not infringe a trademark owned by BC Hospitality Group (BCHG).

In the  request, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on Thursday, March 14, the chefs said Coscarelli had been subject to a “a vicious campaign to interfere with, disrupt, and outright stop Chloe’s growing success at all costs”.

Coscarelli and Colicchio established the vegan pop up restaurant Supernatural  in New York earlier this month. According to the filing, BCHG sent a “threat letter” accusing the chefs of infringing a BCHG trademark for the ‘by Chloe’ brand.

BCHG owns a series of marks for ‘by Chloe’, which are subject to opposition proceedings by Coscarelli before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

According to the filing, Coscarelli partnered with a predecessor of BCHG to develop the ‘by Chloe’ series of vegan restaurants, with which she has not had any involvement for the past two years.

Coscarelli left the business after an arbitrator found that she had been  “grossly negligent” of the restaurant chain.

The chefs said that BCHG was claiming that only it was “allowed to run a vegan restaurant that involves Chloe’s name, face, or likeness”.

BCHG cited a name, face and likeness (NFL) agreement that Coscarelli had entered into when she was involved in the ‘by Chloe’ restaurants, the filing said.

Coscarelli said the purpose of the NFL agreement was “to provide a limited-use license to her name, face, and likeness rights to the company operating “fast-casual” vegan restaurant ‘by CHLOE.’”

The agreement was cancelled in March 2018, the filing said.

The chefs are seeking a declaratory judgment that the Supernatural restaurant does not either infringe BCHG’s trademarks, or violate the NFL agreement.

In a statement sent to WIPR, a representative of BCHG said that the branding of the new restaurant had been "confusing for several of our customers".

"In the interest of both parties’ customer experience, we sent a letter asking them to change or remove the specific similarities in the branding to avoid any further misunderstanding", the statement said.

Did you enjoy reading this story?  Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.

Today's top stories:

Puppet studio accuses Fall Out Boy of exploiting llamas

Jury finds Apple owes Qualcomm $31m

American Airlines successfully defends UK TM opposition

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at

More on this story

29 March 2021   The EU General Court reaffirmed in its decision involving Oatly that a slogan can be protected as a trademark. This decision continues to build on existing EU case law for the successful protection of slogans and it may bring new possibilities for the protection of plant-based substitutes.