Old Eph lawyers never die, they just start fighting City Hall.

Since it opened 75 years ago in a building that once housed sheep, Central Park’s Tavern on the Green restaurant has enjoyed a savory spot in the city’s culinary lore.

It is one of the country’s highest-grossing restaurants, attracting more than 700,000 visitors a year to sample such victuals as slow poached jumbo shrimp cocktail and maple brined roast rack of pork. It has served as the backdrop for movies and television shows.

Now the restaurant’s name is the main ingredient in a legal gumbo that is enough to give at least one of the parties heartburn. In separate court filings this week, the city and the restaurant’s current operators have staked competing ownership claims to the Tavern on the Green name.

Whoever wins stands to profit from a name that has been valued at $19 million.

The current operators – whose license to run the restaurant expires Dec. 31 – have already used the name to produce a cookbook, T-shirts and a line of products that includes specialty dipping oils, vinegars, marinades and sauces.

In a court filing Wednesday, the city argued that it owns the common-law rights to the name because it has licensed the property where the restaurant has been located since 1934, when then-Parks Commissioner Robert Moses directed that a sheepfold near West 67th Street be converted into a building to house an eatery known as a “Tavern on the Green.”

In a dueling lawsuit filed the same day, the current operators, Tavern on the Green Limited Partnership and LeRoy Adventures Inc., argued that they own the name. They cited as proof a trademark issued to them on Aug. 18, 1978, and they argued that they had built the restaurant’s reputation associated with the name over more than 30 years.

The city granted Warner LeRoy, who founded LeRoy Adventures Inc., a license to operate the restaurant in 1973. The licensed was renewed in 1985. LeRoy’s daughter now helms the company.

David H.T. Kane ['58], a lawyer for the operators, said Friday that his clients are “considering other commercial opportunities” under the name, but would not elaborate.

He added that they were within their rights to do so because they have an “incontestable” registered trademark. “An alleged prior user has no rights,” he said. “That’s exactly the situation we’re in here.”

My father continues to work more than 51 years after his graduation from Williams. Will I be working in 2039? I don’t know. But I will certainly be blogging!