In-N-Out Sues Australian Burger Joint, Despite Having No Restaurants In The Country
from the burgers-everywhere dept
Whenever companies and brands begin behaving badly when it comes to enforcing their trademarks, one common reaction from outsiders is "why?" The reason for that singular question can vary, whether it stems from a lack of true infringement taking place to the seemingly harmless nature of use in dispute to everywhere in between. But perhaps there is no better example of a trademark dispute inducing a "Why?" than in the news that In-N-Out is suing an Australian burger company without doing any real or regular business on that entire continent.
Californian burger chain In-N-Out has no presence in Australia. Or anywhere much further than the U.S. west coast and Texas, really.
That hasn't stopped In-N-Out from suing Sydney-based restaurant Down N' Out, which opened in 2016 and served burgers that were a tribute to the cult chain. As reported by the Sydney Morning Herald, In-N-Out claimed the Australian restaurant infringes on its trademark and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by using the Down N' Out name and logo.
Ok, let's highlight this just so nobody can accuse us of being unclear on the point: Down N' Out is clearly referencing and paying homage to In-N-Out, the famous California burger chain. In-N-Out also claims that all of this amounts to Down N' Out trying to pass itself off as being related to the California company. Even if the latter were true, which I doubt is the case, the fact remains that In-N-Out has barely done any business on the entire Australian continent. Despite this, the chain argues that it has "substantial goodwill" in Australia. How that would be, other than by reputation in the media, is anyone's guess.
Despite that, In-N-Out is demanding the Australian company change its name and hand over a bunch of money.
Legal proceedings were launched in Australia's Federal Court in October last year, and In-N-Out has until June to submit evidence to support its claims. In-N-Out wants Down N' Out to stop using the brand, and to pay damages or hand over profits made while using the name.
Again, why? This is dumb, and it's a terrible use of legal funds to wage trademark war on a country in which In-N-Out has no storefront. There's no threat here, because the company isn't operating in that market. All we are left with is our singular question: why?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
All we are left with is our singular question: why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All we are left with is our singular question: why?
I can pretty much guarantee that if In-N-Out pursues this, the judge will insist that they hand over a bunch of money to a trust in Australia which can be taken if they lose. Unlike some countries, Australian courts know they have no jurisdiction over assets which aren't subject to Australian law (unless there's a treaty), so they are going to insist on some assets being present first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All we are left with is our singular question Why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really this is silly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
keeping options open via a pre-emptive strike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Lynsi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For their bottom line, it makes more sense to franchise in the United States because they incur very little incremental cost.
Starting a new franchise in a foreign country would have relatively high incremental costs compared to a new domestic franchisee.
I would think that a franchise business would want to saturate their domestic market before spending the money and building out the resources to support an international expansion. And, if they did expand internationally, I doubt that Australia would be their first market of choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why, you ask?
Well, obviously they don't currently have the means to expand to Australia but a distracting substantial goodwill. So they get rid of the latter.
It's like ruining a clock or relationship for good: you do it for peace of mind. At least afterwards you know that there is nothing to salvage any more and that it is definitely and terminally finished.
You can tell your shareholders "no point worrying about it any more".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is just smart lawyering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: AnonCow on Apr 14th, 2018 @ 5:44am
Instead, they can work out an agreement now with backdoors written into it should anything fall through. A smart lawyer should be able to fight any contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
at best this is flat out bullying based ONLY on the name down n out being somewhat similar. at worst this is just pure stupidity.
go look em up yourselves:
http://www.downnout.com.au/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm in a hurry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why? Rent seeking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the answer is....States with higher hygiene regulation.
In-and-out burger is also not allowed to do "business as usual" in the UK or Europe because the food it supplies and the way it supplies it wouldn't meet regulations.
Make of that what you will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
please do so and i will consider your comments with an open mind. until then, its coming across as typical anti corporate mudslinging that usually turns out to be inaccurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When Burger King moved to expand its operations into Australia, it found that its business name was already trademarked by a takeaway food shop in Adelaide.[3] As a result, Burger King provided the Australian franchisee, Jack Cowin, with a list of possible alternative names derived from pre-existing trademarks already registered by Burger King and its then corporate parent Pillsbury that could be used to name the Australian restaurants. Cowin selected the "Hungry Jack" brand name, one of Pillsbury's U.S. pancake mixture products, and slightly changed the name to a possessive form by adding an apostrophe and "s" to form the new name "Hungry Jack's".[4] The first Australian franchise of Burger King Corporation was established in Innaloo, Perth on 18 April 1971, under the auspices of Cowin's new company Hungry Jack's Pty Ltd.[5] By the end of its first decade of operation, Hungry Jack's had expanded to 26 stores in three states. In October 1981, the company opened its first New South Wales store in Sydney's CBD on the corner of Liverpool and George Street. In 1986, the chain entered Victoria by purchasing 11 stores from the ailing Wendy's Hamburger chain, later converting them to Hungry Jack's.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_Jack%27s#History_of_"Burger_King"_in_Australia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damages?
Given that no one will be likely to confuse the two in such a way that costs In n out money, damages are likely to end in a very round, zero digit figure. This is because the following never happens: "Hang on! I'm in Down n out in Sydney? I thought I was in In n out in California!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simply naming a restaurant something similar when it's halfway around the world and also serving burgers is not enough to prove a claim that copying is taking place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadder still
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sadder still
but thanks for trying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've seen them in Utah as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]