Hacker News Reader

Comment by Hilyin | Hacker News Reader

Trademark stuff, ok, it makes sense they can't use their logos and such. But the whole quality control, food handling, meh. Soon as it's paid for and in the customer's hands, it's the customer's business what happens to it next, not In-N-Outs, it's not theirs anymore.

View on HN

If you get a bad experience because DoorDash took too long or dropped the box and didn't tell you I suspect some/many/most? people might blame the restaurant, not DoorDash. So in that sense I can see why In-N-Out would care since from their POV DoorDash is appearing to represent them to customers.

I understand why In-N-Out might be upset, but I don't understand how they could possibly have any legal standing.

There's probably something illegal about using their logo and displaying a modified menu with marked up prices.

That's the trademark side of the case, and yes, In N Out could probably successfully argue that usage of their logo implies endorsement and/or is likely to create consumer confusion and that it's therefore a trademark violation. That's pretty easy for DoorDash to put to rest; just stop putting In N Out's logo on the site. A few good, highly-visible disclaimers would probably put any remainder of a trademark claim to rest.

A modified menu would be tougher. You can argue that there may be copyright infringement, and that may be valid to a limited extent, but DoorDash could put up a version of the menu that wasn't copyrighted, as its heart, menus are factual arrangements, and facts are not original creative works subject to copyright (though a specific arrangement of those facts may be). In N Out could also claim that there's trademark infringement if DoorDash is using trademarked food names, but I think it'd be a harder argument to win, since DoorDash can argue it's a nominative use.

IANAL.

they probably would need to strip the fluff from the menu. ie. the hot juicy blah burger with .... is just burger, ketchup, mayo, lettuce.

I can understand the factual part, but only if they didn't alter the prices. They'd have to at least mark it clearly that they're charging on top of the prices some amount.

They don't need legal standing. They're a big company, and big companies sue people they don't like into bankruptcy. The basis of the claim only needs to look vaguely possibly meritorious for the lawsuit to be forced through the uber-expensive court circuit.

Only way to avoid being sued into bankruptcy after you've pissed off someone big enough is for your company to be doing dozens of millions each year at minimum, and thus, have the resources to tolerate the associated legal fees. If you make someone mad before this happens, expect to be forced to shut down.

Trademark infringement and dilution. By pretending to be In N Out they confuse customers into thinking they are buying from In N Out directly.

There is a first sale doctrine in Trademark, but it might not (probably?) won't apply here. First, courts have found that not all reselling falls under first sale if the products aren't exactly the same. Here, by delivering they are serving different food because it gets cold and soggy. They could also argue that In N Out doesn't provide delivery service and this place is selling that service using In N Outs trademark.

The damage to In N Out is brand devaluation. People might think that In N Out sucks.

A clear example is: You can resell macbooks. You can buy them, sell them, even repair them.

But you can't set up a fake Apple Store that looks like a regular one.

Doordash is argue they are doing the former, and In N out will say the latter.

Apple store is an interesting example. If you put up a giant flyer "Macbooks sold here!" but stripped them for parts, replacing the RAM and SSD with slower, cheaper versions, you might expect angry letters from Apple too.

Ironically,you couldnt really,since they already are the cheap stuff

"people might blame the restaurant, not DoorDash"

Hence why they should not be allowed to use In-n-Out's logo or otherwise imply there's some sort of partnership.

In-N-Out are more vulnerable to delivery delays because they serve real french fries rather than the reconstituted chemistry experiments that most fast food places have. They are delicious when they come out the window, but must be eaten immediately to avoid calamity. So even if DoorDash were doing everything right, customers would not be happy with the french fries.

In-N-Out burgers aren't owned but rather licensed. Contingent on not being door-dash. Read the EULA.

Is that what that text is at the bottom of my fries?

Yep, John 3:16 IIRC.

Are people down voting this because John 3:16 goes on beverages, not fries (Proverbs 24:16 is the one they put on fries) [1]?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-N-Out_Burger#Bible_verses

Woah! I had no idea they did that (I live in Australia).

I read the linked Wikipedia page, but I still can't work out what the point is. Is that some form of subliminal missionary tactic? Sure the Snyder family were Christian, but why print bible citations on take-away wrappers? What's the context? What's the so-called "take-away"?

I eat there frequently, and I can't work out what the point is either. There is no other manifest connection between Christianity and the establishment.

Note that many of the verses cited are the more vanilla Christian selections. Probably the most objectionable one (especially to non-Christian believers) is John 4:16 ("no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me"), but that one is not printed on anything a customer would see.

I was surprised to find Ezekiel 23:20

"Would you like that animal style?"

It could just be my experience, but I have very rarely seen a non-white person working at an In-N-Out.

But it doesn't reach the customers hands until it is delivered. How long does it take to be delivered? never used Door Dash. Does Door Dash care about quality? probably not as long as it is delivered. We know startups will try to grow quick, which in turn can make their services suffer. customers might blame In-N-Out instead of Door Dash (there are crazy people around).

In-N-Out is meant to be consumed on-premises. It doesn't travel well. Twenty minutes after it comes off the griddle, it's not really all that great.

Since DoorDash is handing the food over to the customer, after a delay that will likely exceed 20 minutes, I can see In-N-Out's point here.

Not necessarily.. if people start to get sick, who has the liability. Jack in the Box had bad food practices and it killed a bunch of people. Same idea here.

> if people start to get sick, who has the liability

The sick people, clearly. Just like the dead people who went to Jack in the Box. Exactly what kind of restitution are you proposing here? A pimped out grave?

That's not how it works according to the law and health codes.

Dead people leave dependants.

That is kind of early-90s Seattle (4 kids died, was working for McDonalds at the time), has Jack in the Box killed a bunch more people more recently that you are referring to?

Would anyone be surprised if it had? I've been to some reasonably comfortable JackintheBoxes, but most of them aren't any better than e.g. Del Taco.

If it had, it would totally have been in the news. That I knew what parent was talking about exactly goes to show that they don't happen that often. I'm not really a fan of Jack in the Box, but 1993 is when I graduated HS, for crying out loud.

No but this is why In&Out wants to control/restrict delivery, to prevent people getting sick and suing them. Delivery guy could have Shigella or something, handles your food (eats a fry say) and you get sick. You blame In&Out. In fact he delivers 100 In&Outs all ordered from same place. Delivery guy is the vector but In&Out gets the blame.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com