7 ms·
Why does that require anything other than enforcement of existing trademark law?
by ummonk 6y ago
Why does that require anything other than enforcement of existing trademark law?
- mschuster91 6y agoBecause many restaurant owners don't even think about trademarks, or their names are too "generic" to be allowed to trademark. The usual exception are the franchise operations (mcdonalds, BK, subway, kfc, ...) because these are thought from the start to be exclusive.
- Causality1 6y agoBecause civil laws only protect people rich enough to hire lawyers.
- weego 6y agoI don't know why this is getting down voted, its absolutely naive to assume this isn't how it plays out in the real world.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoIt’s getting downvoted because it seems to be phrased in a deliberately inflammatory way. You can (and others downthread have) express the same idea that many restaurants can’t afford the expense in a manner more likely to lead to productive discussion.
- Ensorceled 6y agoThis should not be down voted. The idea that a popular little family owned and operated Indian restaurant named "Bombay Curry" and still reeling from COVID-19 restrictions can some how sue Skip the Diehes or Uber Eats for Trademark infringement is absolutely ludicrous.
- jeltz 6y agoYeah, Uber is a company which is involved in legal battles with governments all over the world. I am sure they would make it a real pain to sue them. The idea of restaurants prusuing trademark cases against Uber is ridiculous.
- eloff 6y agoYeah, this is the legal system in a nutshell. Don't think you're safe in any meaningful way because the law says so. At the end of the day you would have to litigate it yourself and that is usually not worth it unless the offense is truly egregious. Against an adversary with deep pockets like a corporation, you can lose even if you win. This is how patent trolls extort companies, litigating a patent suite is usually a seven figure endeavor. And there's no guarantee you win. It's cheaper to pay the licensing free from the trolls, who are smart enough to make sure it's always less than the cost of litigating.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- vkou 6y agoBecause most restaurant owners want to be in the business of running a restaurant, not litigating some out-of-state entities with billion-dollar warchests. Doing the former is working two full-time jobs, as is.
- Frost1x 6y agoPeople tend to forget how critical resources are in our country to rights. You often need time, money, expertise, etc. to enter legal battles and if the costs of those resources outweigh the benefits, you often allow your legal rights to be infringed. Pursuit of some rights are cost prohibitive because everything in the US is so tightly tied to finances. Many of your rights in the US are directly tied to your financial resources, not only in the sense that you have the resources to litigate or absorb failed litigation but even in the sense that those with massive financial resources essentially buy their own rights through legislation. Let's not pretend the justice system doesn't have underlying flaws that allow justice to skew one way or another from money alone because it does. If you're on trial for a serious offense, you're probably not going to use a public appointed attorney if you can avoid it because we know how the legal system works and how financial incentives will attract better legal representation in the private sector than those for public appointment. This idealized and fictionalized system where I can walk into a court of law and defend myself or use a public appointed counsel and 'win' as long as I've done nothing illegal or unjust is a laughable joke for many legal battles, especially those of more significance.
- tylersmith 6y agoThem not wanting to handle their own problems is not a reason for the State to subsidize solutions for them.
- vkou 6y agoThe entire purpose of legislature is to legislate solutions to problems that society faces.
- tylersmith 6y ago
- s_dev 6y agoDespite the downvotes -- I think there is a genuine question here. There isn't the need for more laws just enforcement of existing ones. Purporting to represent someone elses business is an egregious infringement of trademark.
- kelnos 6y agoI would guess that most non-chain restaurants don't own a trademark for their name. It's an expensive process that many likely can't afford.
- johncolanduoni 6y agoIn CA the business will get common law trademark rights in their geographical area just by virtue of doing business under that name, but they would still need to sue the delivery companies which have in house counsel for these kind of things.
- paul_f 6y agoIn the US you are not required to register your trademark in order to enforce it. However, you do get some additional protections. The cost is $225 and it is good for 10 years
- NineStarPoint 6y agoThe answer is likely that our legal system is too expensive for local restaurant owners to afford the cost of suing a grubhub sized company. Restaurants are a business notoriously prone to failure and low margins. Maybe a class action lawsuit would work in this case, but mostly it’s just another case where the legal system needs to be fixed to rely less on having money for justice to occur.
- syshum 6y agoThis is what Class Actions, and Business organizations are suppose to be for Also nothing is stopping the AG of the state from forming a Fraud case agaist the major players. The excuse of "well the courts cost too much money" is not abated by creating even more complex laws that will still require an expensive lawyer to enforce in reality this law is designed to protect those companies that already made billions on abusing trademark laws by making it seem like what they did was legal, a "loophole" in the law that is now "closed" for new competitors
- MichaelApproved 6y agoCreating and defending a trademark is very expensive. Many restaurants would prefer not to spend this money just to prevent unauthorized listings. They’d rather delegate the responsibility of preventing unauthorized listings to the state attorney who has more resources and expertise.
- kgantchev 6y agoThat's not true. A trademark costs around $300: https://www.uspto.gov/trademark/trademark-fee-information https://www.uspto.gov/trademark/trademark-fee-information Enforcing it is free: you can send your own cease and desist for free. The only time you need a lawyer is if they refuse and you want to sue them. If the court rules in your favor, you can even sue them for the legal costs and costs of damages.
- ineedasername 6y agoAnd when the massive corporation that rose to dominance by ignoring local laws also ignores your DIY cease & desist letter, you're out $300. Heck, they'd ignore it if a lawyer wrote it too. Filing a lawsuit would be required, which they'd also ignore and delay as much as possible, far more than the local pizzeria can afford, until there was a class action.
- privong 6y ago> Enforcing it is free: you can send your own cease and desist for free. Enforcing it is free if your time is free.
- novaleaf 6y agotime, and knowledge of how to write such a letter in a way to seem "serious legal threat"
- Timpy 6y agoI don't think Uber Eats has a support page that says "Submit your amateur cease and desist letters here". A $300 trademark is a cheap business expense, using it to scare away massive corporations is expensive.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoThe problem doesn't seem that related to trademarks to me. These app delivery platforms are impersonating companies, not selling their own products under someone else's brand. The food comes from where they claim it did. The issue with impersonation is that customers who got worse experience (cold food, long delivery, etc.) end up blaming the restaurant for it, even though the restaurant had nothing to do with it.
- sokoloff 6y agoHow is trading under the cover of someone else’s mark not a trademark issue? If I’m representing myself as selling “TeMPOral Pizza” for delivery, the fact that I’m actually delivering pizza made at the TeMPOral Pizza Shop isn’t entire cover. If I opened up a shop in the mall with giant lit white Apple logos, the fact that I sold genuine Apple product inside would not absolve me of trademark infringement. (Trademark violations are more than just counterfeit items.)
- roywiggins 6y agoYeah, if you try that with a megacorp, they'll drag you up and down the courts until you give up: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/09/pirate-trader-joes-closes-canada-mike-hallatt-vancouver-grocery https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/09/pirate-trader-...
- eli 6y agoIt isn’t working. This isn’t a hypothetical problem.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- syshum 6y agoWhy enforce existing law, we can you use this opportunity to create ever more complex laws to ensure stake holders that already abused to the condition the law is purporting to address can maintain their advantage and ensure no new entrants to the market That is all this does, it protect GrubHub, DoorDash and other large players from competition
- jakelazaroff 6y agoHow, specifically, does this protect GrubHub/DoorDash/etc?
- syshum 6y agothis law is designed to protect those companies who already made billions on abusing existing laws by making it seem like what they did was legal, a "loophole" in the law that is now "closed" for new competitors They are not "new entrants" in the market, they have a network effect now so it will be preferable to them to sign exclusive deals with restaurants to further ensure there can not be any competition
- SamoyedFurFluff 6y agoSo the alternative should be that we should continue to funnel VC money into every new predatory impersonation business? Sometimes it really is a loophole that is now closed, and the government can’t subsequently dissolve all companies they’ve used it, they can only ask companies to stop.
- sgustard 6y agoThe app could say "we deliver from the Greek place on Main Street" to avoid using the trademark, but still be in violation of the new law. Also, many restaurants can't get a trademark. My favorite local place is "Joe's Pub" but I don't imagine that's a unique name.