A Tale of Two Pinos: Restaurateurs Dispute the Name Rights to Their Establishment
By Miranda Aitken | Journalist & Samantha Ludemann | Associate
Two restaurateurs walk into a restaurant – both calling it Pino E Cucina, both claiming to own it. So, who does?
Sydney restaurateur, Matteo Margiotta sold his popular Italian restaurant, Pino E Cucina in May 2025, citing the uncertainty of securing a long-term lease in Alexandria. His plan? To reopen the restaurant with a seaside twist, aptly called Pino E Cucina al Mare (“at the sea”) in Cronulla.
But just weeks later, the original Alexandria venue reopened under the same name, with similarities that left some locals confused, including having the same name, returning staff, and parts of the original menu.
Margiotta has viewed this as an obstacle to his own business in Cronulla, having enlisted IP lawyers to resolve the confusion with his buyer, Manish Agrawal.
“It’s been a massive problem… they can’t call it Pino’s,” Margiotta said.
Despite this, Agrawal has always been of the understanding that the purchase of the restaurant included the name of the business. “It’s part of the sale contract [that] we can use the name… we agreed we would put Alexandria on the end,” he said. ¹
According to Principal Partner, Blair Beven of XVII Degrees, “When a business owner decides to sell, the buyer of that business will first look at its Intellectual Property assets. This is because IP rights consist of more than just a trade mark or logo, they also hold the reputation, goodwill, and trust that customers associate with it.”
It can be speculated that Agrawal purchased the business with the intention to leverage the influence of its name and trade mark, which includes the value of its existing customer base and reputation.
This is not the first time a hospitality business has been under fire for using the same name as another.
Heston Blumenthal famously opposed the name of a small cafe in Sydney’s Darling Quarter called, Fat Duck, because it infringed on his trade mark, “The Fat Duck”, which had been registered in a number of countries, including in Australia. ²
Under Australian law – specifically the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – a trade mark is personal property. Like a car or house, it can be sold, retained, or licensed. But unless it’s explicitly included in the sale agreement, the name doesn’t automatically go with the business. ³
While Margiotta’s Pino trade mark has been registered in Australia since 2018, and a further trade mark with less distinctive elements was filed in May 2025, it’s unclear whether either mark was formally transferred to Agrawal. But the ambiguity is enough to fuel a legal and reputational headache.
In effect, this case underscores the importance of crystal-clear IP clauses in sale agreements.
Are you navigating the sale of a business? Contact XVII Degrees for professional advice on the IP particulars of your sale agreement.
Featured Image by Annie Spratt on Unsplash
References:
[1] Janssen, A. (2025). Restaurateurs locked in custody battle over venue name. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/goodfood/sydney-eating-out/restaurateurs-locked-in-custody-battle-over-venue-name-20250612-p5m6tx.htm
[2] Hospitality Directory. (2014). Millionaire chef Heston Blumenthal threatens legal action against tiny Australian cafe over its name. Retrieved from https://www.hospitalitydirectory.com.au/industry-news/6259-millionaire-chef-heston-blumenthal-threatens-legal-action-against-tiny-australian-cafe-over-its-name/
[3] Australian Government. (1995). Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). Retrieved from https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tma1995121/
