7 ms·

I don't see how this is actually any different than any of the many doughnut (KK specifically) fundraisers around the country where groups (sports, music, etc)

I don't see how this is actually any different than any of the many doughnut (KK specifically) fundraisers around the country where groups (sports, music, etc) either pre-order or buy large quantities to resell. Its exactly the same model, other than that this guy was doing it repeatedly and KK wasn't getting to set the terms.

kd5bjo 7y ago
If I had to guess, this is a trademark issue. First sale doctrine only gives him the right to sell legitimately-marked products, but not to use the Krispy Kreme marks in advertising. His FB page was called “Krispy Kreme Run Minnesota”, which implies an endorsement that doesn’t exist.
- jnwatson 7y ago
  Anybody that has an ounce of sense understands this is not endorsed by the brand.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    That argument may not hold up in a court if Krispy Kreme had to explain why it didn't do anything to prevent known misuse of its trademark.
- SllX 7y ago
  This is the most sensible possibility I’ve seen. This whole time I was scrolling I was wondering how this is different from the stupid crap Postmates and DoorDash do, or how it squares with the First Sale Doctrine.
- jjeaff 7y ago
  If that's the case, seems like a friendly request to change the name of the facebook group would make more sense.
vannevar 7y ago
I don't see how it's different from any of the food delivery services I can use to get Krispy Kremes brought to my house. Not sure KK has a legal leg to stand on here.
sdenton4 7y ago
Crossing state lines to sell food seems like it maaaaybe will set off some regulatory bells and/or whistles.
- jiofih 7y ago
  The food automatically becomes dangerous once imaginary lines are crossed.
- kangnkodos 7y ago
  Also, local laws may apply. Most towns have a health department which periodically inspect restaurants and food trucks. He is probably legally required to apply for a permit before he sells food. I guess the local health officials will choose to look the other way, as they do when a kid sets up a lemonade stand, at least until someone files a complaint.

kd5bjo 7y ago

If I had to guess, this is a trademark issue. First sale doctrine only gives him the right to sell legitimately-marked products, but not to use the Krispy Kreme marks in advertising. His FB page was called “Krispy Kreme Run Minnesota”, which implies an endorsement that doesn’t exist.

jnwatson 7y ago
Anybody that has an ounce of sense understands this is not endorsed by the brand.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  That argument may not hold up in a court if Krispy Kreme had to explain why it didn't do anything to prevent known misuse of its trademark.
SllX 7y ago
This is the most sensible possibility I’ve seen. This whole time I was scrolling I was wondering how this is different from the stupid crap Postmates and DoorDash do, or how it squares with the First Sale Doctrine.
jjeaff 7y ago
If that's the case, seems like a friendly request to change the name of the facebook group would make more sense.

vannevar 7y ago

I don't see how it's different from any of the food delivery services I can use to get Krispy Kremes brought to my house. Not sure KK has a legal leg to stand on here.

sdenton4 7y ago

Crossing state lines to sell food seems like it maaaaybe will set off some regulatory bells and/or whistles.

jiofih 7y ago
The food automatically becomes dangerous once imaginary lines are crossed.
kangnkodos 7y ago
Also, local laws may apply. Most towns have a health department which periodically inspect restaurants and food trucks. He is probably legally required to apply for a permit before he sells food. I guess the local health officials will choose to look the other way, as they do when a kid sets up a lemonade stand, at least until someone files a complaint.