3 ms·

GrubHub says that restaurants have it wrong by citing fine print. Restaurants want first right of refusal over the use of their brand, not default opt-in by a

GrubHub says that restaurants have it wrong by citing fine print. Restaurants want first right of refusal over the use of their brand, not default opt-in by a third party buried in legalspeak. GrubHub is trying to reframe this issue in legalistic terms, to distract from their failure to collect explicit opt-ins from every restaurant they’ve used in this manner. It’s unfortunate that the headline enables that change in perception by readers.

failrate 7y ago
Correct. GrubHub is typo-squatting, and at best are in some form of trademark violation.
jeremyjh 7y ago
The article says they turned over the domain to the restaurant on their request. Also it sounds like this is not just fine print; they advertise this service as part of their offering to businesses. Finally, if you are running a business, you cannot plead ignorance on the fine print. You need to read contracts that you sign, or pay a professional to do so.
- floatingatoll 7y ago
  The issue here is not "were they authorized to do this?". They were. The issue here is that their actions indicate that they cannot be trusted. Do they require the business owner check a box "Yes" or "No" and initial next to the clause where the business owner authorizes GrubHub to operate their brand without further consent? No, they don't. That they do not implies to business owners that they cannot trust GrubHub. That they refuse to notify business owners when they register a domain using their brand implies to business owners that they cannot trust GrubHub. That their response summarizes as "you signed a multi-page contract that permitted us to do this without notification to you when we do, stop whining about it" implies to business owners that they cannot trust GrubHub. This is why they are so desperate to shift the framing of the argument from "GrubHub broke trust" to "GrubHub was legally authorized to act this way". They aren't willing to change their behavior, and so instead they simply try to reframe the news with a press statement.

failrate 7y ago

Correct. GrubHub is typo-squatting, and at best are in some form of trademark violation.

jeremyjh 7y ago

The article says they turned over the domain to the restaurant on their request. Also it sounds like this is not just fine print; they advertise this service as part of their offering to businesses. Finally, if you are running a business, you cannot plead ignorance on the fine print. You need to read contracts that you sign, or pay a professional to do so.

floatingatoll 7y ago
The issue here is not "were they authorized to do this?". They were. The issue here is that their actions indicate that they cannot be trusted. Do they require the business owner check a box "Yes" or "No" and initial next to the clause where the business owner authorizes GrubHub to operate their brand without further consent? No, they don't. That they do not implies to business owners that they cannot trust GrubHub. That they refuse to notify business owners when they register a domain using their brand implies to business owners that they cannot trust GrubHub. That their response summarizes as "you signed a multi-page contract that permitted us to do this without notification to you when we do, stop whining about it" implies to business owners that they cannot trust GrubHub. This is why they are so desperate to shift the framing of the argument from "GrubHub broke trust" to "GrubHub was legally authorized to act this way". They aren't willing to change their behavior, and so instead they simply try to reframe the news with a press statement.