September 4, 2008
The trademark infringement fight over Chuco's Tacos has gotten uglier than a paper bowl with three rolled tacos covered with sauce and cheese and left in your car for a couple of days.
Chuco's Tacos, most recently known as 10th Street Tacos, was an Austin establishment that provided a (sort of) taste of home for El Paso ex-pats. Taste of home because, of course, Chico's Tacos is an iconic El Paso eatery; sort of because Chuco's had a slightly different menu and a different taste and feel, according to people who ate there.
Nonetheless, the owners of Chico's Tacos, the Mora family, filed suit in December, 2007, alleging trademark infringement and other business no-nos. They asked for profits from Chuco's, punitive damages, and that Chuco's stop using any materials that are similar to Chico's trademark, such as the logo, packaging and "products." The most recent filing came Aug. 26, a little more than a month after 10th Street Tacos closed. That closure, according to a court filing, was July 16.
The filings indicate a real animosity -- in addition to suing Chucos Management Group LLC, Chico's Tacos Inc., owned by the Mora family, is suing Joel L. Ortega, one of Chucos' principals. Chico's alleges in an Aug. 4, 2008 amended complaint that Ortega, acquainted with the Mora family, told one of the family members that "he could open a Chico's Tacos and just change one letter in the name."
The fight also has spilled onto the Internet, and even touched on the UTEP-Texas game coming up Saturday. In an Austin-American Statesman blog, a member of the sports staff writes, "If the Longhorns go starving because they can’t find a good taco in this town, we’re blaming you, El Paso. We’re coming out there Saturday — angry and hungry."
In a different blog entry, El Pasoans offer their thoughts on who is right and wrong, and who has/had the better food.
Below is a summary of legal documents filed in the case, for you die-hard lawyers and food critics. The most recent document filed is an order sending a motion for disclosure of evidence -- the plaintiffs asked a series of 74 questions, and claimed not all were answered.