7 ms·

In-N-Out sues startup DoorDash, says burger delivery is a trademark violation

19 points by pavornyoh 11y ago

pavornyoh 11y ago
>In-N-Out attorneys claim that DoorDash uses an "Imitation Logo" of In-N-Out on its website. The logos look nothing alike.
- bsamuels 11y ago
  at the bottom of the site is a bunch of logos of the companies they buy from - the in n out logo used to be there
tfe 11y ago
When I worked at TaskRabbit I made an In-N-Out delivery site (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4306834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4306834). It ran for a week or two before In-N-Out got wise and sent a C&D. We found out at the time that they already had a long history of fighting delivery services. It starts to bring up questions of personal liberty... can I hire someone (TaskRabbit, DoorDash) to do something on my behalf (buy In-N-Out), and act as my agent? And does In-N-Out have any basis for preventing me from doing that?
- DanBlake 11y ago
  Interesting question. I would think the answer as of currently, is no. That is less because forcing that restriction would be legal or illegal, and moreso because when you buy food at in-n-out you are not waving any rights or signing any document. If for instance, before every sale of a burger they made you tap a screen saying "I agree this purchase is not for delivery" then yes, the delivery person/service could be sued for tortuous interference. Unless that happens, there is broad restrictions on what companys can do to restrict secondary sales. The only caveat could be that restaurants are regulated for quality and health. If a lawsuit could prove that the delivery services are actually re-selling the food instead of merely delivering them, there might be a case there. Especially because I highly doubt these services have the relevant licenses to prepare and sell food. Its possible though.
- bittercynic 11y ago
  Also corporate liberty. Does In-N-Out have the right to refuse to sell to DoorDash couriers?
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Of course they do. So long as they're not using protected characteristics they can sell, or not sell, to who they like.
    - dboreham 11y ago
      The delivery person would need a shirt. And shoes.
  - dboreham 11y ago
    Probably not, but I don't personally want to see "unofficial" delivery services like these for reasons of quality control, food hygiene, and a desire to have a single point of responsibility for the product. If I order a Pizza from Dominos, the dude who delivers it is paid by, and represents Dominos. Therefore he is motivated to deliver quickly, to respond to any complaints I may have about the food or service, and to not spit in my food. The same is not true for a 3rd party delivery service. I can see that In-n-Out might be concerned that their brand image could suffer at the hands of substandard delivery services.
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    Yes. Assuming it's only because they are doordash couriers, and not for any protected reason (race, gender, etc. In CA, even unconventional dress is protected). Note, however, that if companies conspired together to refuse service to doordash couriers, that would be an antitrust violation known as "concerted refusal to deal".
    - SilasX 11y ago
      I agree, but it would probably only be an antitrust issue if they refused to deal with DoorDash specifcally; if they maintained a clearing house for blocking everyone who resold their goods without permission, that would probably be okay, right? At the same time, good luck trying to determine which orders are DoorDash...
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  You have the right to request that they conduct a transaction via your agent. They have the right to refuse service to that agent. There is no prior business agreement that states that in-n-out sell to doordash agents, and refusal to do so is within their rights, as delivery person is not a protected class.
- _lce0 11y ago
  internet archive has a bunch of pages .. seems it was active during 2012 https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.burgerto.me/ https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.burgerto.me/
radnam 11y ago
Interesting way to get DoorDash to negotiate a favorable deal with In-N-Out.
- free2rhyme214 11y ago
  I don't think that's the case.
koenigdavidmj 11y ago
Okay, replace it with a note: "We tried to deliver In-n-Out, but they sued us. We're happy to deliver burgers from their competitor, $name!"
oldmanjay 11y ago
When I first moved to the west coast, I was lead to believe that In-N-Out was actually good. Instead, I paid a lot of money for ~McDonald's quality food, and it took longer to get it. Now I'm to believe people want this delivered? I supposed if you really needed to squeeze the last bit of edibility out of the food, sure, but I feel like the doordash premium makes this a fool's game.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- eridius 11y ago
  I'm not really a fan of In-N-Out either, but I will admit that their food is not the same as McDonalds. That said, there are plenty of people that use services like Postmates to get McDonalds food, and it works pretty well.
- dboreham 11y ago
  "~McDonald's quality"?? If you mean within an order of magnitude, then I suppose yes. Neither is the French Laundry. For me In-N-Out is clearly superior. In fact, I use them vs McDonalds as an example to show my kids what happens when Wall St. gets in charge of a business. One presumes that a long time ago McDonalds did make food of equal quality to In-n-Out but decades of squeezing out that extra 0.1% of profit margin every month has an effect.
- SilasX 11y ago
  I agree, but that's not relevant to the story here, and is a personal opinion, which is why I think you got voted down.
crabasa 11y ago
IMNAL, but it seems that In-N-Out is correct here. There are a couple of exceptions [1] in trademark law for using logos without permission: 1. your use is for informational or editorial purposes (for instance, you use the trademark as part of an article or story) 2. your use is part of accurate comparative product statements. That being said, there's nothing stopping DoorDash from buying food from In-N-Out and delivering it to people. They just can't use the logo. [1]: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-you-need-permission-use-trademarks.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-you-need-permiss...
- arbuge 11y ago
  >> That being said, there's nothing stopping DoorDash from buying food from In-N-Out and delivering it to people. I would imagine this is not true if they're representing themselves as a delivery service officially sanctioned by In-N-Out.
  - crabasa 11y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by "sanctioned". Trademark law is very specific and this lawsuit is entirely about the logo on the website. I'm not aware of any law that could prevent someone from going to a restaurant, buying food, and delivering it to whomever they wish.
    - delinka 11y ago
      A "sanctioned" relationship would mean that the restaurant does indeed endorse the reseller. And how's a consumer to know the difference?
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > I'm not aware of any law that could prevent someone from going to a restaurant, buying food, and delivering it to whomever they wish. DoorDash isn't just delivering the food it buys, it is selling it (unlike a normal third-party restauarant delivery service, where the customer purchases food from the restaurant -- possibly with an extra delivery service charge -- and the restauarant hires the delivery company to delivery it to the customer.) Selling food to customers is regulated and requires various permits, and selling food to resellers is separately regulated from selling to consumers (and the restaurants DoorDash is buying from may well not be properly permitted to sell to resellers.) Sure, I can buy food at In-N-Out, drive it to someone, and give it to them, but if I start a business of reselling food from In-N-Out or other restaurants, there are a host of legal issues involved (and not just trademark issues of trading on those restaurants' brands and logos.)
DanBC 11y ago
There's some more discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10551312 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10551312
ebbv 11y ago
This at first seems frivolous but after considering it I have to side with In-N-Out. Consumers may think this company is an authorized/official delivery service for In-N-Out, and if In-N-Out can't be certain of the quality of the service that's going to possibly reflect badly on them.
o0-0o 11y ago
Look, anyone that has every been to in-n-out, or any other fresh burger place, knows that the food tastes worse after a few minutes. why would in-n-out want there food delivered, when it will arrive in a poor state. obviously, in-n-out wants their food to be the best. delivered fries and burgers are not that great.
free2rhyme214 11y ago
The short term profits were not worth what this lawsuit will cost them.
esonderegger 11y ago
Lawyers for In-N-Out say DoorDash's delivery vehicles aren't compliant with the California Retail Food Code, and In-N-Out would never authorize DoorDash "or any other entity to deliver its food products to consumers without the necessary food handling licenses and food safety procedures in place." This, to me, seems like a valid concern. The folks at In-N-Out take the freshness of their food very seriously. If someone gets sick from an In-N-Out burger delivered by DoorDash, it's not unreasonable to assume this will have negative consequences for In-N-Out's reputation, not just DoorDash's. Related: How is DoorDash getting away with delivering food and not complying with California's retail food code? That seems like a really bad idea.

19 points by pavornyoh 11y ago

>In-N-Out attorneys claim that DoorDash uses an "Imitation Logo" of In-N-Out on its website. The logos look nothing alike.

bsamuels 11y ago
at the bottom of the site is a bunch of logos of the companies they buy from - the in n out logo used to be there

tfe 11y ago

When I worked at TaskRabbit I made an In-N-Out delivery site (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4306834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4306834). It ran for a week or two before In-N-Out got wise and sent a C&D. We found out at the time that they already had a long history of fighting delivery services. It starts to bring up questions of personal liberty... can I hire someone (TaskRabbit, DoorDash) to do something on my behalf (buy In-N-Out), and act as my agent? And does In-N-Out have any basis for preventing me from doing that?

DanBlake 11y ago
Interesting question. I would think the answer as of currently, is no. That is less because forcing that restriction would be legal or illegal, and moreso because when you buy food at in-n-out you are not waving any rights or signing any document. If for instance, before every sale of a burger they made you tap a screen saying "I agree this purchase is not for delivery" then yes, the delivery person/service could be sued for tortuous interference. Unless that happens, there is broad restrictions on what companys can do to restrict secondary sales. The only caveat could be that restaurants are regulated for quality and health. If a lawsuit could prove that the delivery services are actually re-selling the food instead of merely delivering them, there might be a case there. Especially because I highly doubt these services have the relevant licenses to prepare and sell food. Its possible though.
bittercynic 11y ago
Also corporate liberty. Does In-N-Out have the right to refuse to sell to DoorDash couriers?
- DanBC 11y ago
  Of course they do. So long as they're not using protected characteristics they can sell, or not sell, to who they like.
  - dboreham 11y ago
    The delivery person would need a shirt. And shoes.
- dboreham 11y ago
  Probably not, but I don't personally want to see "unofficial" delivery services like these for reasons of quality control, food hygiene, and a desire to have a single point of responsibility for the product. If I order a Pizza from Dominos, the dude who delivers it is paid by, and represents Dominos. Therefore he is motivated to deliver quickly, to respond to any complaints I may have about the food or service, and to not spit in my food. The same is not true for a 3rd party delivery service. I can see that In-n-Out might be concerned that their brand image could suffer at the hands of substandard delivery services.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  Yes. Assuming it's only because they are doordash couriers, and not for any protected reason (race, gender, etc. In CA, even unconventional dress is protected). Note, however, that if companies conspired together to refuse service to doordash couriers, that would be an antitrust violation known as "concerted refusal to deal".
  - SilasX 11y ago
    I agree, but it would probably only be an antitrust issue if they refused to deal with DoorDash specifcally; if they maintained a clearing house for blocking everyone who resold their goods without permission, that would probably be okay, right? At the same time, good luck trying to determine which orders are DoorDash...
Sanddancer 11y ago
You have the right to request that they conduct a transaction via your agent. They have the right to refuse service to that agent. There is no prior business agreement that states that in-n-out sell to doordash agents, and refusal to do so is within their rights, as delivery person is not a protected class.
_lce0 11y ago
internet archive has a bunch of pages .. seems it was active during 2012 https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.burgerto.me/ https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.burgerto.me/

radnam 11y ago

Interesting way to get DoorDash to negotiate a favorable deal with In-N-Out.

free2rhyme214 11y ago
I don't think that's the case.

koenigdavidmj 11y ago

Okay, replace it with a note: "We tried to deliver In-n-Out, but they sued us. We're happy to deliver burgers from their competitor, $name!"

oldmanjay 11y ago

When I first moved to the west coast, I was lead to believe that In-N-Out was actually good. Instead, I paid a lot of money for ~McDonald's quality food, and it took longer to get it. Now I'm to believe people want this delivered? I supposed if you really needed to squeeze the last bit of edibility out of the food, sure, but I feel like the doordash premium makes this a fool's game.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
eridius 11y ago
I'm not really a fan of In-N-Out either, but I will admit that their food is not the same as McDonalds. That said, there are plenty of people that use services like Postmates to get McDonalds food, and it works pretty well.
dboreham 11y ago
"~McDonald's quality"?? If you mean within an order of magnitude, then I suppose yes. Neither is the French Laundry. For me In-N-Out is clearly superior. In fact, I use them vs McDonalds as an example to show my kids what happens when Wall St. gets in charge of a business. One presumes that a long time ago McDonalds did make food of equal quality to In-n-Out but decades of squeezing out that extra 0.1% of profit margin every month has an effect.
SilasX 11y ago
I agree, but that's not relevant to the story here, and is a personal opinion, which is why I think you got voted down.

crabasa 11y ago

IMNAL, but it seems that In-N-Out is correct here. There are a couple of exceptions [1] in trademark law for using logos without permission: 1. your use is for informational or editorial purposes (for instance, you use the trademark as part of an article or story) 2. your use is part of accurate comparative product statements. That being said, there's nothing stopping DoorDash from buying food from In-N-Out and delivering it to people. They just can't use the logo. [1]: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-you-need-permission-use-trademarks.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-you-need-permiss...

arbuge 11y ago
>> That being said, there's nothing stopping DoorDash from buying food from In-N-Out and delivering it to people. I would imagine this is not true if they're representing themselves as a delivery service officially sanctioned by In-N-Out.
- crabasa 11y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by "sanctioned". Trademark law is very specific and this lawsuit is entirely about the logo on the website. I'm not aware of any law that could prevent someone from going to a restaurant, buying food, and delivering it to whomever they wish.
  - delinka 11y ago
    A "sanctioned" relationship would mean that the restaurant does indeed endorse the reseller. And how's a consumer to know the difference?
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > I'm not aware of any law that could prevent someone from going to a restaurant, buying food, and delivering it to whomever they wish. DoorDash isn't just delivering the food it buys, it is selling it (unlike a normal third-party restauarant delivery service, where the customer purchases food from the restaurant -- possibly with an extra delivery service charge -- and the restauarant hires the delivery company to delivery it to the customer.) Selling food to customers is regulated and requires various permits, and selling food to resellers is separately regulated from selling to consumers (and the restaurants DoorDash is buying from may well not be properly permitted to sell to resellers.) Sure, I can buy food at In-N-Out, drive it to someone, and give it to them, but if I start a business of reselling food from In-N-Out or other restaurants, there are a host of legal issues involved (and not just trademark issues of trading on those restaurants' brands and logos.)

DanBC 11y ago

There's some more discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10551312 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10551312

ebbv 11y ago

This at first seems frivolous but after considering it I have to side with In-N-Out. Consumers may think this company is an authorized/official delivery service for In-N-Out, and if In-N-Out can't be certain of the quality of the service that's going to possibly reflect badly on them.

o0-0o 11y ago

Look, anyone that has every been to in-n-out, or any other fresh burger place, knows that the food tastes worse after a few minutes. why would in-n-out want there food delivered, when it will arrive in a poor state. obviously, in-n-out wants their food to be the best. delivered fries and burgers are not that great.

free2rhyme214 11y ago

The short term profits were not worth what this lawsuit will cost them.

esonderegger 11y ago

Lawyers for In-N-Out say DoorDash's delivery vehicles aren't compliant with the California Retail Food Code, and In-N-Out would never authorize DoorDash "or any other entity to deliver its food products to consumers without the necessary food handling licenses and food safety procedures in place." This, to me, seems like a valid concern. The folks at In-N-Out take the freshness of their food very seriously. If someone gets sick from an In-N-Out burger delivered by DoorDash, it's not unreasonable to assume this will have negative consequences for In-N-Out's reputation, not just DoorDash's. Related: How is DoorDash getting away with delivering food and not complying with California's retail food code? That seems like a really bad idea.