One of Manchester’s best-loved pasta spots has changed its name following a legal trademarking dispute with a Scottish restaurant.
Popular Manchester pasta kitchen Sugo has been embroiled in a legal challenge with a restaurant of the same name in Glasgow, leading it to change its name.
Whilst Sugo in Glasgow only opened at the end of 2019, it has still managed to secure the trademark for the name – leaving Manchester bosses with no choice but to rebrand despite their restaurant group having been established for much longer.
Sharing the news on Instagram this morning, the Manchester restaurants account posted that from hereon out it would be known not as Sugo, but as Sud – which translates to ‘South’ in Italian:
Owners wrote: “Same us, same mission, same pasta kitchen. From today our new name will be Sud Pasta.
ADVERTISEMENT
“We’re aware that we can’t stop any speculation, however, all we’ll say is that our home is in the kitchen, not the boardroom.
“We love our new name. We love what it stands for. We love our ‘A Southern Italian Pasta Kitchen’
ADVERTISEMENT
“By the way, Sud means ‘south’ in Italian. More importantly, we’ve got a brand new menu format starting in March. The Sud pasta Spring menu.
“Love, light and appreciation. Michael and Alex.”
First opened in 2015 in Altrincham, Sugo Pasta Kitchen has long been a favourite amongst the city’s pasta lovers. In fact, the furore for its strozzapreti and orecchiette is so intense that its fans are even known, affectionately, by owners as their ‘Sugo Army’.
However, it appears that even its ranks of pasta-munching soldiers have been unable to save the Southern Italian pasta kitchen from a rebrand eight years on from its first opening.
Commenting on the post, one follower wrote: “What’s the betting that we’ll still be calling it Sugo for years to come. Manchester institutions tend to retain their name… I still refer to Manchester Central as GMEX!”
Another person said: “As long as House Sud (sugo) tastes the same you could be called Nasty Pasta for all I care. Love the new name. #forzasud“
A third added: “Is it going to now be called “House Sud” like panicking here.”
ADVERTISEMENT
It seems that the name conflict first came to light in 2019, after customers at the Glasgow restaurant mistakenly purchased vouchers for Sugo in Manchester, thinking that the two were connected.
In a Facebook post shared on 10 December 2019, Sugo shared a post in relation to this addressing their ‘brothers and sisters in Glasgow’:
The restaurant wrote at the time: “Beautiful people, epic city. Way too many of you peeps are landing on our website, looking at our menu, buying our vouchers and mistaking us for Sugo Pasta – unfortunately for you folk it isn’t us!
“We launched in Manchester back in 2015 so if you’re ever south of the border in our city come and check us out! The crazy thing here is your boys (the guys behind Paesano Pizza) are trying to sue us for using our own name, crazy world we live in eh!”
In a now-deleted post entitled ‘We’ve got beef’, the Glasgow restaurant responded – claiming that they had offered a ‘compromise’ to Manchester Sugo, offering them the chance to keep the name if they agreed to not open any further locations.
ADVERTISEMENT
The post also claimed that Manchester Sugo had opened their Ancoats branch after the agreement was made, a claim that is disputed by the Manchester restauranteurs.
The Manchester restaurant owners were also accused of failing to respond to legal correspondence, to which owners responded by revealing that they had been sent a letter asking them to remove their signage, hand over their website, and withdraw their own trademark application amongst other things.
By contrast, the most recent post from the Manchester restaurant seems very tame by comparison, although the comment from owners that ‘our home is in the kitchen, not the boardroom’ seems to speak volumes.
The Manc has approached Sud, formerly Sugo Pasta Kitchen, owner Mike De Martis for comment.
Feature image – Google Maps
News
Independent review into police actions during Manchester synagogue terror attack finds ‘no misconduct’
Emily Sergeant
An independent review into the terror attack at a synagogue in Crumpsall last week has concluded there was ‘no misconduct’ by the police.
The investigation was carried out by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) following the shocking knife and car attack, which took place last Thursday 2 October on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue.
Two men sadly lost their lives during the attack – Adrian Daulby, 53, who is believed to have been shot dead by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) while trying to stop the attacker from entering the synagogue, and Melvin Cravitz, 66, a worshipper who also helped stop the attacker.
The attacker has been named as 35-year-old Jihad al Shamie – a 35-year-old British citizen of Syrian descent who lived in Prestwich – who at the time was on bail for an alleged rape, before being shot dead by police.
Statement from Chief Constable Sir Stephen Watson following an update from the Independent Office for Police Conduct. This comes after last week's attack at Heaton Park Synagogue. pic.twitter.com/5tQQKeNaTh
The IOPC says its investigation is ‘mandatory’ in situations where police use of force may have resulted in the death of a member of the public.
Their investigation looked at the actions and decision-making of the officers involved in the incident.
“Over the coming days, we will continue to review the substantial amount of evidence gathered up to now, and will begin the process of obtaining more detailed statements from police witnesses,” the IOPC said in a statment.
GMP’s Chief Constable, Sir Stephen Watson, says he ‘welcomes’ the IOPC’s finding that no misconduct is apparent in the actions required of officers in ‘bringing this dreadful attack to an end’.
An independent review into police actions during the Manchester synagogue terror attack has found ‘no misconduct’ / Credit: GMP
He said in a statement addressing the matter: “Our thoughts will always be with the families and loved ones of those directly affected by this tragedy together with the wider community across Greater Manchester and beyond. Our significant presence and determination to protect everyone from all faith communities across our city region will continue unabated.”
With the IOPC’s investigation into the incident still ongoing, CC Watson assured ‘GMP is committed to openness, transparency, and candour’.
“In respect of all our previous dealings with [al Shamie], and we have therefore asked the IOPC to include this aspect in their ongoing review,” CC Watson continued.
“This includes previous reports of harassment, and an arrest for reports of rape over the past year, for which he was on bail at the time of the attack.”
Featured Image – GMP
News
Breakaway competition R360 issues statement after rubgy unions warn players of sanctions
Danny Jones
Prospective breakaway competition R360 have issued a response to the joint statement from multiple countries’ rugby unions, which has warned players of sanctions should they choose to join the new league.
While the vast majority seemingly remain opposed to the new concept, backing from certain key figures has resulted in the likes of the UK and Irish rugby unions, along with other key nations, sharing their unified stance against the potential rival.
Put in the simplest terms, the R360 model is rugby’s equivalent of what the proposed European ‘Super League’ was for football just a few years ago, with similar questions being raised around how it could jeopardise existing contests, player wellbeing and more.
Now, though, the new format – which has been largely backed and developed by former World Cup winner with England, Mike Tindall – delivered its own reply on Wednesday, 8 October.
Shared publicly to the press, the alternative tournament wrote: “It’s not always easy to embrace new opportunities, but as we’ve seen throughout history, it’s essential for any sport to grow. So many players love what R360 can do for them and the game, and we can’t wait to kick off next year.
“Player welfare is one of the key reasons for creating our global series, which will greatly reduce player load and capture the attention of a new generation of fans globally. We want to work collaboratively as part of the global rugby calendar.
“The series is designed with bespoke schedules for men’s and women’s teams and R360 will release all players for international matches, as written into their contracts. Our philosophy is clear – if players want to play for their country, they should have that opportunity. Why would the unions stand in their way?
“We look forward to submitting to the World Rugby Council for sanctioning next summer as planned.”
At present, R360 is due to hold its inagural season this time next year, with eight new male teams and four women’s sides expected to get underway from October 2026 onwards.
In addition to more lucrative contracts like those promised in the IPL (Indian Premier League) cricket, LIV Golf and the aforementioned albeit failed Super League, R360 is also set to offer a reduced playing schedule but one that would still tempt athletes away from their current teams to new franchises.
The national rugby unions of New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Ireland, England, Scotland, France and Italy have released the following statement on the proposed R360 competition ⬇️#IrishRugby
Although they have assured player care is an utmost priority, their health and fitness is one of my concerns put forward by the total eight rubgy unions who have urged current pros to stay away from the breakaway competition.
In case you haven’t seen the statement release by England, Ireland and Scotland, as well as France, Italy, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa, it begins by “urging extreme caution for players and support staff considering joining the proposed R360 competition.”
Assuring that they welcome “investment and innovation in rugby”, they feel this particular idea won’t improve the sport but could instead “fragment or weaken it.”
Having assessed the proposals supposed value/addition to the “rugby’s global ecosystem”, it seems the fear is that the outcome will be a “net negative to the game”, with little to no detail as to how it can run alongside existing fixtures, assure proper management of player welfare and more.
As for Wales, despite opting not to put their name to the open letter itself, they have stated publicly: “The Welsh Rugby Union supports this statement, and we’re considering changes we may need to make to qualification rules in Wales as part of ongoing analysis following our recent consultation process.”
The statement continues: “The R360 model, as outlined publicly, rather appears designed to generate profits and return them to a very small elite, potentially hollowing out the investment that national unions and existing leagues make in community rugby, player development, and participation pathways.”
It seems there is deep concern for how it could affect grassroots and the international rugby too, not just league and union, and have failed to full explain or help key organisations “better understand their business and operating model.”
Most notably, they sign off by adding: “Each of the national unions will therefore be advising men’s and women’s players that participation in R360 would make them ineligible for international selection.”
What do you make of the whole debate – do you like the current schedule/format as it is, or do you think there’s room for a new chapter in the rugby world?
Georgina Pellant -
13th February 2023 
