A simmering dispute has erupted in Sydney’s dining scene after the sale of a beloved Italian restaurant in Alexandria sparked a bitter disagreement over the right to use its name. What began as a routine ownership transfer for Pino’s Vino e Cucina has become a full-blown “custody battle,” complete with legal letters, heated social media debate and two restaurateurs staking conflicting claims to the cherished Pino’s brand.
Background: Pino’s Vino e Cucina’s Rise and Lease Woes
Pino’s Vino e Cucina opened its doors in 2016, quickly establishing itself as a go-to destination for authentic Italian fare on Sydney’s inner-west dining circuit. Under founder Matteo Margiotta, the restaurant became known for generous share-plate pastas, wood-fired pizzas and an expansive Italian wine list curated to complement every dish. Over nearly a decade, Pino’s cultivated a loyal regular clientele and earned glowing reviews from food writers.
Yet despite its popularity, Pino’s long-term future at the Alexandria site never felt secure. Margiotta later explained that protracted negotiations over a new lease, coupled with rising rental costs in an increasingly competitive precinct, made it difficult to plan beyond month-to-month tenancy. Faced with uncertainty—and eyeing the opportunity to expand his brand—he opted to sell the Alexandria business and shift his focus to a new waterfront venue in Cronulla, branded Pino’s Vino e Cucina al Mare.
A Surprise Reopening and Social-Media Furor
Regulars expecting the original Pino’s to close quietly were stunned when, weeks after Margiotta’s departure, the Alexandria premises reopened under new ownership—complete with much of the old fit-out, several familiar staff members and the near-identical name “Pino’s Vino e Cucina Alexandria.” Patrons immediately took to Reddit and Facebook to debate whether the new operators had the right to trade under the Pino’s name, dubbing the row a “custody battle” over a restaurant moniker and demanding clarity on who truly owned the brand.
Margiotta’s Position: Name Reserved for Cronulla Concept
When contacted by the Herald, Margiotta expressed dismay at the decision to retain the Pino’s name at the original site. “It’s been a massive problem,” he said. “I sold the restaurant, not the name. We agreed the new venture in Cronulla would carry the Pino’s brand, while the Alexandria spot should have been rebranded.” He confirmed that legal advisers were now involved but declined to disclose further details, citing confidentiality. Margiotta maintains that the sale contract did not grant the purchaser rights to the Pino’s name beyond a transitional period, and that continued use infringes on his intellectual property.
Agrawal’s Stance: Name Included in Sale Agreement
New operator Manish Agrawal—an Alexandria local with 15 years’ hospitality experience—strongly disputes Margiotta’s claim. “It’s part of the sale contract that we can use the name,” he said. “The only stipulation was that we would append ‘Alexandria’ to the end, hence ‘Pino’s Vino e Cucina Alexandria.’” Agrawal emphasized that he purchased not just the lease and fixtures but the goodwill of a “going concern”—the established reputation and customer base built under the Pino’s banner.
He insists his team preserved the core menu—maccheroncini alla vodka with tomato sugo and spanner crab, grilled swordfish, roasted bullhorn peppers and wagyu tartare remain best-sellers—while preparing a revised wine list from scratch. A new, seasonally focused menu is slated to launch in coming weeks. Despite the friction, Agrawal says he respects Margiotta’s legacy and hopes for an amicable resolution. “I wish the whole thing would go away,” he admitted.
Legal and Branding Implications for Hospitality
This dispute is not the first of its kind in Australia’s restaurant industry. High-profile cases in recent years include celebrity chef Heston Blumenthal successfully forcing a Sydney venue to abandon the name “The Fat Duck,” and local burger joint Down N’ Out’s protracted legal battle with U.S. chain In-N-Out Burger. Such conflicts underscore the risks of adopting names that echo established brands, even when operating in different locations or market segments.
According to Wes Lambert, chief executive of the Australian Restaurant & Cafe Association, “We encourage restaurants to be unique and have their own identity. Using similar brands can confuse consumers and expose owners to trademark disputes.” Experts point out that registering a business name does not grant exclusive rights; trademark protection must be obtained through separate application, and even then, enforcement hinges on the clarity of agreements and geographical scopes.
Trademark Basics: What Restaurateurs Need to Know
Ownership of a restaurant name typically resides with the registered trademark holder—whether an individual or corporate entity. In the absence of formal trademark registration, rights may still attach to a name through common-law “passing off,” which requires evidence that the name has acquired distinctiveness and consumer goodwill. Sale agreements should explicitly address the transfer—or retention—of trade marks, business names and associated intellectual property.
Agreements can include clauses limiting the purchaser’s use of the name after a transition period or attaching geographical restrictions. Without such provisions, courts may interpret the sale of a “going concern” to implicitly encompass the name and goodwill. However, ambiguity in contract language often triggers years of litigation, robbing both parties of revenue and consumers of transparency.
Community Reaction and Customer Confusion
Site patrons have voiced mixed opinions. Some lament the loss of Margiotta’s personal touch and fear that Agrawal’s version may not live up to the original. Others argue that “Pino’s is a place, not a people,” and that a seamless handover preserves neighborhood culture and foodie pilgrimage. Social-media threads reveal longstanding regulars torn between loyalty to the Margiotta era and curiosity about the new operators’ vision.
One local commenter wrote, “I miss Matteo greeting us at the door, but the al fresco dining with the same menu and lower prices could be a win.” Another noted, “If they’re keeping the same pasta and opening hours, why change anything?” Meanwhile, trademark lawyers have weighed in, offering free consultations to aggrieved restaurateurs worried about similar scenarios.
Future Prospects: Mediation or Courtroom Showdown?
Both parties appear reluctant to cede ground. Margiotta has signaled readiness to pursue legal action to protect his brand, while Agrawal stands firm on contract terms he says permit continued use. Industry observers predict a mediation phase will precede any courtroom battle, as both sides seek to avoid costly litigation that could damage their reputations.
Possible outcomes include a settlement in which Agrawal agrees to rebrand within a grace period, license the Pino’s name for a fee, or jointly operate under a franchise-style arrangement. Alternatively, a court may be asked to interpret the sale contract’s intent, examine any trademark filings, and decide whether “Pino’s Vino e Cucina” has become a protected mark.
Lessons for Hospitality Entrepreneurs
The Pino’s dispute highlights several takeaways for restaurateurs:
• Negotiate Clear IP Terms: When buying or selling a restaurant, explicitly address the fate of trade names, logos and customer goodwill in the contract.
• Register Trademarks Early: Secure federal or state trademark protection for your name to establish priority rights and create a clear legal foundation.
• Plan Rebranding Carefully: If exiting a site, ensure the successor adopts a distinct name or agrees to license yours, preventing consumer confusion.
• Communicate with Customers: Transparent signage and public statements can reassure patrons and minimise social-media backlash during transitions.
Ultimately, the Pino’s saga serves as a cautionary tale at the intersection of gastronomy and intellectual property law. As Sydney’s hospitality sector continues to evolve amid rising rents and fierce competition, restaurants and cafés must safeguard their “secret ingredients”—not just in the kitchen, but in their brand identities. Whether in Alexandria or Cronulla, the name “Pino’s” now carries lessons in lease negotiations, sale contracts and the enduring power of a moniker that diners cherish
READ MORE: Prince William, Kate Middleton and Children Attend Trooping the Colour in Coordinated Family Debut
