Battle Over 169 Bar Trademark
A contentious situation is unfolding at the renowned 169 Bar, where the landlord is allegedly attempting to seize control of the bar’s trademark to open a similar establishment in the same spot, according to a shocking lawsuit.
Maria Colon, whose family has owned the property for years, reportedly filed to register the 169 Bar name and its well-known martini logo without the current owner’s knowledge. She intends to launch a mimic bar at the original location, as claimed in the legal complaint.
The lawsuit states, “Defendants have indicated that they plan to provide bar service to consumers in the same locations under the same 169 BAR mark,” asserting that they have sought federal approval for trademarks without any real ownership or quality control rights.
Current owner Charles Hanson expressed frustration, saying, “They’re trying to mess with me.” Colon did not respond to requests for her side of the story.
Hanson, 71, has been battling with his landlord for a while over lease renewal and eviction issues. He stated that the trademark situation feels like “pouring salt in the wound.” He purchased the bar in 2006 after receiving a settlement from a car accident, driven by his vision to redefine it as a dive bar.
This establishment has become a haven for celebrities such as Zoe Kravitz, Cillian Murphy, and Jason Momoa, and was even featured in comedian Aziz Ansari’s show, *Master of None*.
Decades ago, the bar was part of a family-run business by the Podbielska family, which included a restaurant. Colon’s mother, Yolanta Podbielska, is credited with creating the now-iconic martini glass sign.
When Hanson took over, the bar was more of a dim venue hosting oil wrestling events, but he successfully transformed it into a vibrant gathering place that became a staple in Dimes Square.
His efforts have not gone unnoticed, gaining favorable media coverage over the years highlighting its cheap drinks and quirky atmosphere, which features elements like a leopard-print pool table and $5 tarot readings.
Hanson noted that Colon’s trademark was filed in 2014 but expired in 2020, an unfortunate oversight during the pandemic that he was unaware of. Shortly after, Colon filed a new application, claiming her family had been using the trademark since 1977.
“I think this trademark has value because of the effort I put into it,” Hanson asserted, referring to how he revived the brand’s identity.
Despite his arguments, he expressed concern that he isn’t being justly compensated for his work. His landlord hasn’t managed the bar for nearly three decades, even though they assert that their use of the trademark goes back to 1977. Recently, federal prosecutors cautioned against Colon’s trademark application, citing concerns about its commercial viability.
Complicating matters further, Colon’s daughter allegedly claimed ownership to staff at the bar, leading Hanson to reflect, “They could have been honest and said their daughter wants to run the bar.” This situation continues to brew, revealing a deep complexity in what should be a straightforward business affair.
