Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

Gee, this is really great. The Lobster Roll as Intellectual Property. Just a matter of time until the legal community jumps on this ridiculous bandwagon .... now when I take the subway, the ads will read

"If you or someone you know has been involved in any kind of recipe or food related copy-cat activity, we are here to help you connect to a local attorney for FREE. Talk to a Personal Recipe-Theft Attorney Today! GET THE MONEY, AND STUPID PRESS COVERAGE, YOU DESERVE! Visit www.lobsterollcopycats.com today and get free legal advice" and then an endorsement from Charles herself.

Geeesh ... shut up for cryin out loud, I just want to eat in peace.

It is amazing how many people are commenting about this when A) they have not seen the complaint and B) they have no idea what the issues are. Inane gossip, speculation, and erroneous conclusions just muddy the waters. The complaint is online and Rebecca Charles is suing for trade dress, identity theft and breach of fiduciary responsibility.

She doesn't claim to have invented anything but HER OWN restaurant, which she is trying to protect.

She doesn't want to stop you from getting your cheaper, closer lobster roll, nor does she lay claim to inventing them, just HER OWN. (Pearl's roll is a completely different animal than the traditional New England shack roll, which is why it's the one everyone copies.)

She couldn't get more customers in the joint and if she were trying to make money, she would have opened several, which brings me to the next point.

It seems McFarland is partnered with businessmen (one a millionaire/political wannabee, according to google) who intend to open of these.

In NYC on biz this week I went to both places for lunch and dinner and ELB looks exactly like Pearl. This is not Ed Levine's bias, it's reality. The paint colors down to the green in the bathroom, gray wainscoting and the white painted brick wall are identical; as are the marble bar and side bar; the beer tap; bathroom furniture; pendant lights; window seat; chairs; floor stain; odd long cabinets behind the bar; glassware, plates, coffee mugs, and doilies; waiter's station; large mirror like Pearl's placed in the same way behind the bar; and the actual layout of the dining room. The placement of the pictures, "sconces," chalkboards, what is written on them and how, menu and wine list are all identical.

Almost every item on Ed's menu is something I have eaten at Pearl in the past or can get today and this includes the lunch menu which no one is mentioning. The presentation of the dishes is identical; the sides are the same, the tartar sauce, the mignonette, etc. The mussel dish and the bouillabaisse (not clam shack dishes) were exactly the same as was Pearl's pot pie. He even makes her blueberry crumble pie. The quality paled but the intent was clear.

I lived in SF for more than a decade, went to Swan all of the time and the restaurants are nothing alike. And anyone familiar with clam shacks knows that Pearl Oyster Bar is much more than that. Tie up all these ends at Ed's and you have AN ILLEGAL FRANCHISE. Right, which I understand is a bit of an esoteric, obsolete concept these days, and the law are on Rebcca's side.