Loew's Paradise Theatre

Benjamin on February 22, 2005 at 10:28 pm

Brian Wolf: Interesting points, and you could very well be right!

But I think what makes the Loew’s case a bit more interesting than some others (and I’m not that familiar with the examples you gave) is that Loew’s is still a company that owns and operates many movie theaters in the NYC area — so there is a potential for confusion if the Paradise is publicized and actually operated under the name “Loew’s Paradise.” (And given people’s feelings about today’s Loew’s multi-plexes, such confusion might be either good or bad — it might enhance the Loew’s brand [“They were a classy company that used to build very nice theaters.] or detract from it ["Wow, what happened that they started building such crummy new theaters?].

In terms of Sears, I think a case could be made that if we were talking about department store buildings rather than an office building, that a Sears corporation that operated many department stores in an area might object if someone bought and fixed up one of their old stores and operated it under the name, say, “Sear’s State Street Store.”

Also, to further play devil’s advocate, I think the situation with a non-Loew’s, “Loew’s Paradise” might be similar in a way to that of the “Loew’s Paradise” page on the Cinema Treasures website. Apparently Cinema Treasures finds it necessary (possibly to avoid legal problems?) to post at the bottom of this page: “Note: Cinema Treasures is not affiliated with Loew’s Paradise Theatre. If you have a question about a recent ticket purchase or need to contact theater management, pleae contact the theater directly.” So maybe a “Loew’s Paradise,” officially named and operated as such, might be required to do the same?

And the other thing that came to mind that seemed to make this a possibly special case is that sometimes brands have to “crack” down on trademark infringement even when they might not really feel like it because, if they don’t, they lose the right when they really need it. (Again, not being a lawyer, I don’t know if this is really applicable here. But that’s one of the issues that come to my mind.)

And just to add another example of why it seemed to me that Warren’s original question might have at least some merit, there is the famous example of the original Roxy Theater (1927) and the Roxy Center Theater (1932) where the courts ordered that the Roxy Center relinquish the Roxy part of its name. (But of course in the Loew’s case, there is possibly the difference that you imply — that a Loew’s Paradise would probably not subtract business from other Loew’s theaters in the Bronx the way a brand new Roxy Center Theater might have subtracted business from an older Roxy a few blocks away.)

Anyway, although I too have my doubts that there is any problem with continuing to call the “Paradise” the “Loew’s Paradise,” I was hoping that people would take up my light-hearted challenge and come up with some witty substitutes for “Loew’s” in the signs on the theater. (For the owners of the Paradise, it could be a nice bit of long lasting publicity along the lines of naming that restaurant near Lincoln Center “O'Neal’s Balloon” — the story behind the restaurant’s unusual name gave it free “good” publicity for many, many years.)

---

P.S. — It occured to me after my last post, that commercial laws are probably federal not state, so the same laws would probably govern theaters in both New Jersey and New York.

Benjamin on February 22, 2005 at 5:48 pm

I don’t think there’s any question that they can continue to call the theater the “Paradise,” it was the “Loew’s” part — especially as it concerns the exterior signage — that could be problematic (especially since the signage is, in at least one instance, an integral part of the building’s exterior architectural design).

By the way, two other examples came to mind of designated NYC landmarks where a company’s name was part of the exterior design and the question arose as to what to do when the old owner (still in existence) was no longer the owner: the former McGraw-Hill Building and the former RCA Building (which I think is still in existance?).

In the case of the McGraw-Hill Building, the name of the company was set into the top of the building in some kind of ceramic or terra cotta tiles — not easy to change. Fortunately, given the new name of the building, it was relatively easy though (I believe) to change the name since the new company was known by its initials “GHI” (Group Health Insurance) and they were contained in the old name.

In terms of the Loew’s New Jersey, don’t know if New Jersey’s commercial laws in this regard would — or would not — be similar to New York’s. (Again, I’m not a lawyer.) Also don’t know how similar or dissimilar their laws regulating landmarks are to those of New York City’s.

Benjamin on February 22, 2005 at 11:58 am

Interesting that you should bring up the NYC landmark regulations and signage, because there is another interesting precedent to this question.

There is a turn of the century (?) building on the northeast corner of Union Sq. Park that used to be the headquarters of an insurance company (Guardian Life?) but was turned into a luxury hotel (a “W” hotel). The building was an officially designated landmark and, if I understood the news stories correctly, the neon sign atop the building (Guardian Life) was (foolishly, in my opinion) considered to be part of the landmark designation.

Again, if I understood the news story correctly, the new owners were able to convince the landmark preservation commission that replacing the “Guardian Life” sign with a similarly styled “W” sign would be in keeping with the landmark designation.

I’m assuming (but don’t really know) that the building didn’t have such a sign when it was originally built. So, personally, it seems to me that the building might be an even better landmark without any sign on top whatsoever. And while the sign doesn’t bother me, the efforts to preserve it (or something similar) strike me as possibly being ideologically “precious.” (The reason I say “possibly” is I think there may be water towers or a giant air conditioning unit on the roof, and maybe the sign helps camouflage them a bit.) It seems to me that the Landmark Preservation Commission would be better serving its mission if it turned its attention and energy towards preserving what seem to me to be true NYC landmarks, like the Beekman, etc.

Benjamin on February 22, 2005 at 10:19 am

Warren: That’s an interesting question. Though I’m not a lawyer, I wonder if the private owners would really have a right to continue to use the name. In my experience, the term “grandfathered” usually applies to a new government regulation which does not apply to already existing conditions. I’m not sure if it would apply to something like this.

While not exactly the same issue, there are two movie related law cases that are somewhat similar. When Samuel(?) Goldwyn parted from Metro Goldwyn Meyer, I think the court ruled that he could use his own name (which was a fabricated one to begin with) as long as it was made clear that he was no longer associated with MGM. There was also a fascinating legal case a few years back (in the 1980s or early 1990s?) where Shirley Temple sued the makers of a prepackaged version of drink that people had come to know as “Shirley Temples.” Don’t know remember how it was decided, but I think the judge made a similar kind of decision whereby they could use the name as long as the package indicated that Shirley Temple herself was not associated with the product.

There is also the funny case in New York of a restaurant opposite Lincoln Center that was called “O'Neal’s Balloon” because it was against a NYC ordinance to use the word “saloon.”

Also, while not a legal case, when they changed the name and signage of the Alvin Theater to the (Neal) Simon, they were “lucky” because the new name had the same number of letters, so it could be neatly done.

Considering all this, maybe they should change the name to the “John’s Paradise” (in honor of Eberson)? Or maybe Cinema Treasures should run a “contest”? (The winner should have five letters and an appostrophe that take up the same amount of space as Loew’s. Extra credit is for a name that involves the least number of changes to the word “Loew’s.”)

Divinity on February 22, 2005 at 3:39 am

Great News Everyone!
For the first time in many years The bright red letters spelling Loew’s Paradise Theatre have been illuminated with red neon light.
Perhaps the sunburst will be next! During the dark hours of the night the light can bee seen from blocks away. The scaffolding and mesh screening still haven’t come down, but some new sections of the rear wall have been steam cleaned.

Ziggy on February 10, 2005 at 9:56 am

Thanks Divinity! It’s good to know things are still progressing. I’m going to come to the Bronx this summer and see for myself. Even if all I can do is look at the outside at peer through the doors.

Ziggy on February 7, 2005 at 6:01 pm

Divinity, your frequent updates are very much missed! Do you have any comments for us regarding what’s up at the Paradise?

Divinity on January 4, 2005 at 2:32 am

The original sunburst was a bright orange and yellow with jezebel red lettering. I do agree that the royal blue background is just a bit much.

bzemanbz on January 3, 2005 at 10:46 am

We just happened to be driving up Grand Concourse on New Years Day and, say what(!), workers were working on the Paradise! Some were doing exterior work on the building’s store facades and something was going on inside because we could see lights on behind the plastic tarps across the entrance. The guard in the booth ignored our pleas to peek at the interior, though. Here’s a point to ponder: from what we could make out from behind the scaffolding covers, the sunburst on the flat “marquee” is painted in a really, taxingly garish blue, yellow and red. Was this original? It seemed a bit much against the elegant terra cotta ornamentations of the building. I would have expected something more subdued. But I could be wrong, and these colors were meant to be “attention getters'”

Broan on December 24, 2004 at 2:00 pm

I’d imagine they would be able to retain the name, most buildings do. Like the Sears tower for example, Sears doesn’t have a thing to do with it anymore.

RobertR on December 23, 2004 at 9:47 am

Are they able to keep the Loews name? I am curious about this for the Jersey City also?

Divinity on December 23, 2004 at 12:54 am

Mark,

I only wish that I knew how to use a digital camera and transfer images onto a website. If you or anyone does, please do so!