There is a famous restaurant in Sister Bay, Wisconsin, Al Johnson’s Swedish Restaurant, that has a sod roof. The grass is kept trimmed, as often done in Sweden (I guess), by live goats.
No, they don’t fall off, and they are quite a tourist attraction.
This is not the only goats-on-roof establishment in the county, since another place nearby has had goats on their roof for decades, too. But Al Johnson’s has decided that no one else can have goats on their roof, because the customers would be confused and misled and their brand would be diluted. So they threatened to sue.
Rather than spend money to fight it, Establishment #2 has removed their goats.
This is not the first time Al Johnson’s has sent a threatening letter. They once claimed that a restaurant in Georgia was usurping their trademarked goats, and forced them to do a goat-ectomy, or at least sign a goat+roof license agreement.
I wonder if Al Johnson will be sueing any restaurants in Sweden or Switzerland.
Al Johnson’s says they had taken out “trade dress” on that concept in 1996. From the printed version of the Door County Advocate article, Johnson’s attorney, Lori Meddings, of Michael Best & Fredrich says:
How do I file a “trade dress” on having a parking lot, or a door that opens? That way, I could sue everyone and take over the world!
I always thought that functionality precluded “trade dress”, so if the goats were keeping the roof vegetation under control, that functionality would peclude “trade dress”. But that’s just old dredges of memory from a course I took years ago, so take my comments with a grain of salt.
Coincidentally, I happen to know that the Georgia tourist trap still displays goats on the roof, calls itself “Goats On The Roof”, and apparently owns the domain goats-on-the-roof.com. They make no mention of any other goat-related enterprise on their website. I don’t know what legal kerfluffle they may have been involved in, but apparently they came out of it just fine.
From the press reports, it looks like the restaurant is engaging in intimidation tactics; it’s a long-running, highly successful restaurant (a shopping complex, even) and I suppose their resources are relatively unlimited compared to the mom & pop stores they threaten.
IANAL, but I imagine trade dress has limits and a court would find a goats-on-roof concept can’t cover ALL roofs, ALL goats, especially on an island 20 miles away. Common sense – although often excluded from courtrooms – would suggest that Al Johnson’s trade dress needs to be shortened.
They signed a licensing agreement, according to the article. It was either sign, remove the goats, or get sued. Perhaps the cost of the license was bearable considering the alternatives.
I’d like to see someone argue the opposite functionality. Instead of having the goats there to keep the grass short, say that you wanted to have goats and they’re on the roof because it was the only space available to grow grass and feed them.
Well, I’m thinking that in a Maritime restaurant, you look through the glass of the lobster tank to pick which darling crawler you would like dispatched and served up for your dinner.
With a Greek/Swiss restaurant, you could look out through the glass of the window at the goats mowing the first floor’s roof . . .
