NAME GAME HAS AGENT CRYING FOUL.

Byline: Ken Ward On Business

What's in a name? For Omni Hotels - as their name suggests - it's everything.

The chain, long established in the hotel business, has applied to register the word as a trademark in travel-related services.

But there's a problem. Dozens of travel companies have been doing business under that name for decades.

Four years ago, the company's attorneys began sending letters to similarly named travel firms ordering them to cease and desist from using the Omni title. Curiously, that was two years before Omni applied for trademark status.

Some agencies heeded the letter.

Not Joe Brickman. The owner of Omnicruises in Hollywood has taken his fight to court.

Brickman has been doing business under the Omnicruises masthead since 1982. While it's a small operation, he says he turned down Omni's offer of $5,000 to cover the costs of retitling his agency.

``I had checked with the federal trademark listings and found no Omni company listed under the category of travel agency services,'' he recalls. ``There were scores and scores of other Omni companies, so I decided to go with it. No confusion has occurred with my agency for nearly 15 years.''

But Brickman acknowledges that he never sought official trademark status. And that's where Omni comes in.

Lawyers for the company maintain that Omni is much more than a hotel chain. It is, they say, in the business of ``travel-related services.''

It's difficult, however, to assess the scope and character of that business because Omni is owned by TRT Holdings of Corpus Christi, Texas. The private company, which bought Omni's 40 hotels and franchised resorts for $500 million last February, is not required to release financial reports.

But Virginia Richard, who represents Omni in the Brickman case, says the company has ``participated'' in cruise-related ventures for ``more than 10 years.''

Furthermore, TRT said at the time of purchase that it is pledged to pursue ``an aggressive growth strategy.''

In the face of such corporate clout and determination, Brickman knows his fight is a legal long shot. He's representing himself - and you know what lawyers say about that. And by neglecting to pursue registration of his corporate name, he left the field open for others.

Omni would appear to be on solid ground. It already has registered the names Omni, Omni International, Omni Hotels and Omni Classic Service. Travel would seem to be a logical extension.

Still, this David vs. Goliath case raises a fundamental common-sense question: Just how far can one company go in claiming ownership of a word that's in everyone's vocabulary?

While high-profile politicking continues over Japanese car imports, another issue looms overhead.

Currently, United and Northwest airlines use the cities of Tokyo, Osaka and Naha as hubs, with spokes emanating to other Asian points. Japan is seeking to persuade Washington to negotiate away those ``beyond'' rights.

Japan's gambit to block the hubs has real financial implications for California, which accounts for $47 billion in exports to Asia. Limitations on Asian destinations would complicate and jeopardize that trade, according to an analysis by Booz-Allen and Hamilton Inc.

Fact is, competing carriers, such as Japan Air Lines, are far more expensive. Higher prices will depress traffic and trade.

The Booz-Allen report suggests that Japan's plan could cost California up to 50,000 jobs and $2 billion in economic activity by 2005.

Particularly hard hit would be United, which has plans to serve 19 Asian cities with a total of 401 weekly trips to capitalize on the continent's robust economic growth.

But the skies are no limit for Japan's protectionism, and that country is looking for a way to muscle in its airlines.

Whether you're a business owner, consumer or tourist, it sounds like a bad deal.

MEMO: Ken Ward is business editor of the Daily News. He can be reached on the Internet at kenricwardaol.com