‘Shame!’ After the first legal battle for ‘trademarks’ salon salon, salon owner faces backlash
Salon owners in Pennsylvania are defending their rights to trademark a former beauty salon that was shuttered last year after losing a lawsuit over its name.
The owners of the Tram Salon in Harrisburg sued former owner, Shari P. Shatner, claiming she misappropriated their name.
But the suit is still pending, and Shatners attorney, Jonathan Krosnick, declined to comment on the case.
Shattner’s attorneys also did not respond to a request for comment.
Shriner’s attorney, Richard G. Pangilinan, declined comment.
In a news release last year, Shatney’s attorney said the salon was a national success story.
Shavneer’s name appeared on salon products sold at department stores, and her name appeared in many national newspapers.
The salon was one of a number of “shameful” names that were removed from websites, but the lawsuit said she and her partners still were harmed by those names.
The lawsuit was filed last November, but it did not go into details about the names that went out of use.
The names of other businesses that also closed or were forced to close due to trademark law complaints include: L.A. Barbershop, which went out at the end of April.
The barbershop in West Hollywood closed at the start of June.
Dry Cleaner & Cleaning Center, a salon in the San Fernando Valley, closed at that time.
Hewlett-Packard and Krebs Beauty closed their doors as well.
Shatner’s attorney was unavailable for comment on Friday.
Pungent odor complaints filed by salon owners in the late 1990s contributed to the closure of several other Shatneys in California and other states, according to the suit.
The plaintiffs argued that they were unable to pay for the salon to remain open because of a lack of credit card and insurance coverage.
Shatra was the only Shatnery in the United States to remain operating, according in the suit, adding that many other Shatiors across the country are struggling to survive.
Permanently closed in July The salon in Harrisstown closed because of “a significant amount of odor complaints,” according to a news report.
The attorney for the plaintiffs, Richard M. D’Antonio, said the lawsuit was based on information he obtained through an investigation of a salon near a home for the mentally disabled.
Dangen’s attorney did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
A few months ago, Dangenberg said, she started looking into the possibility of moving out of the home to help with expenses.
But she did not want to leave the home and was not financially able to do so.
The suit alleged that a number “of employees” were paid less than minimum wage and that other Shattners were underpaid because of the lack of insurance.
In February, the state Board of Equalization, which administers the state’s trademark law, rejected the lawsuit and the Shatters’ motion to dismiss it.
It cited “the ongoing litigation in the state and federal courts concerning the use of the term ‘Shriner’ in connection with the property,” and “the public interest in maintaining the safety and quality of the area and the property.”
Pungently perfumed products purchased from the salon and the barbershops had become “a symbol of the beauty industry,” the suit said.
Pongen’s lawyer, Peter T. Hager, said he did not think the suit was frivolous, but would have preferred a different outcome.
“We would have hoped for a better outcome in the case,” he said.
“There’s no question that the Shattnery’s name is on a lot of products, and that’s going to be a problem.”
A spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office declined to answer questions about the lawsuit.
She also declined to provide additional details about why the lawsuit wasn’t filed.