The Museum of Modern Art wants no more of MoMaCha, a new café and gallery on the Lower East Side that the museum is suing for trademark violation. In its complaint, filed on Tuesday, the museum claims it sent MoMaCha a cease-and-desist letter in late March, before the café had opened to the public.
“[MoMaCha’s] willful intent here is clear as there is no possibility that they were not aware of MoMA or its famous MOMA mark prior to starting their business earlier this month,” the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, states. “They are blatantly attempting to take advantage of the MOMA Marks, which are unquestionably famous within the modern and contemporary art space, to promote their newly launched art gallery and café business — perhaps even hoping for some free publicity when MoMA inevitably takes additional steps to stop this blatant infringement of its MOMA Marks, something that MoMA has not been required to do in the past.”
MoMaCha, meanwhile, says it has no illusions of being confused for MoMA and plans to change its logo design on a regular basis. The café and gallery opened in a small storefront space at 314 Bowery (directly next-door to popular gallery The Hole) earlier this month, and has plans for three additional locations in the coming months. Its inaugural exhibition features touchable and edible art by Dan Lam.
“I don’t understand what MoMA wants from us,” the café’s co-owner, artist Eric Cahan, told Hyperallergic.” Do they want us not to exist? They don’t own the word ‘cha,’ it means tea; they don’t own the word ‘more.’ To me it’s a little confusing. They can have Richard Prince in their collection, but I can’t use Helvetica? It doesn’t make any sense.”
Large corporations are often moved to threaten or pursue legal action when their trademarked names, logos, and other design elements are infringed upon by other businesses (see: Trader Joe’s v Pirate Joe’s). MoMA’s complaint offers an extensive primer on its visual identity, branding, and trademark holdings, noting that MoMaCha filed trademark applications for “MOMA” and “MOMACHA” on January 18, 2018 and November 17, 2017, respectively.
“There is no question that Defendants are targeting the very visitors that frequent MoMA’s museum, stores, and restaurants,” the lawsuit claims, “and hoping to confuse them into believing that Defendants’ MoMaCha art gallery and café has some connection to MoMA, when there is none.”
For its part, MoMaCha says it has no interest in competing with MoMA, or profiting from any similarity between its simple Helvetica logo and the museum’s famous visual identity.
“MoMaCha is not here to compete with the Museum of Modern Art on any level,” reads a statement sent to Hyperallergic by MoMaCha. “We’re a matcha cafe with a creative side, just like many coffee shops. In short, we aren’t a museum. We’re a group of good listeners who love making people feel happy through matcha and shared experiences.”
The tenor of MoMA’s lawsuit is more severe. It accuses MoMaCha of acting “with full knowledge of and intent to cause harm to MoMA,” and claiming that because of the café, MoMA will suffer “harm to its name, reputation, and goodwill.” The lawsuit calls on the café to cease using the name “MoMaCha.”
Cahan said he has no intention of changing the name, but added that it had always been MoMaCha’s intention to change its logo on a seasonal basis, in response to its exhibition programs, and with respect to the specific neighborhoods of its given locations.
“All that they can make me do is change our logo. Cool, I’ll do that on my own, no problem,” he added. “I’m not going to stop everything I’m doing because MoMA doesn’t like my use of Helvetica.”
As arts communities around the world experience a time of challenge and change, accessible, independent reporting on these developments is more important than ever.
Please consider supporting our journalism, and help keep our independent reporting free and accessible to all.