In-N-Out Burger Continues Suing Australian Burger Slingers Despite Having No Presence In The Country Other Than Popups

from the down-n-out dept

For this post, we're going to need to provide some context when it comes to In-N-Out's fraught relationship with the entire country of Australia. The famous burger chain based here in America has made a habit of suing Australian entities that sell burgers using the same or similar names over trademark rights. If you're not familiar with the history here, that may not strike you as particularly noteworthy, especially given that some of the sued entities in question very much do use names and branding that serve as at least an homage to In-N-Out. The problem here is that In-N-Out has basically no presence in Australia. The company has no storefronts or brick and mortar businesses in Australia. As in... at all. Instead, the company has made a habit of doing pop-up restaurants in the country once every three years or so. Why? Well, because of a provision in Australian trademark law that allows this to satisfy the use-it-or-lose-it nature of trademark protection.

In other words: In-N-Out has no real presence in Australia, has never shown any indication of having a real presence in Australia, and simply uses these once-in-a-while pop-up locations solely to keep its trademark registrations active.

This has continued to the present, where In-N-Out is yet again suing another entity for violating the trademarks it's just barely using in Australia.

US burger giant In-N-Out has accused an Australian business of engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct and trademark infringement by selling burgers and fries on three delivery services as “In & Out Aussie Burgers”.

The burger chain is suing Rich Asians Pty Ltd and businessman Puneet Ahori in the Federal Court, alleging the operator passed itself off as In-N-Out when it sold food on Uber Eats, DoorDash and Menulog in at least four locations in Queensland.

Let's get one thing out of the way as a matter of throat-clearing: Rich Asians Pty Ltd was absolutely using deceptively similar trade dress and name to In-N-Out. After a cease and desist was sent, the company put new branding in place, changing the logo so as not to be so obvious.

On Wednesday, barrister Megan Evetts – appearing for the American burger chain – said the Australian restaurants initially used the name “In-N-Out Aussie Burgers”, but when a cease and desist letter was sent the first part of the name was changed to “In & Out”.

She said the delivery listings previously used an “exact copy” of the American In-N-Out logo, and that had now been changed to a logo which still includes an arrow.

Which gets us to the present, where the logos are fairly different -- arrow use not withstanding -- the offering name of "In & Out Aussie Burgers" is somewhat different, and In-N-Out is claiming that the confusion with the public is resulting in "negative reviews" which is effecting the American burger chain.

Which, again, is the entire problem. In-N-Out does not have any actual Australian presence. Much to the annoyance of Australians, it seems, given that there appears to be a healthy appetite for the chain's offerings in the country, such that these so-called knockoffs are selling burgers. So, it's not that In & Out Aussie Burgers isn't clearly looking to trade off of the fame of In-N-Out, because it absolutely is doing that. The question is why In-N-Out should have any say in the matter given the way it is perverting the trademark laws of Australia just to keep its marks in a marketplace it has no real intention of serving.

Filed Under: australia, burgers, pop-ups
Companies: in-n-out, rich asians pty ltd

Judge Orders Down 'N Out Burger Joint To Hand Over All Signage To In-N-Out, Which Has Almost No Presence In Australia

from the up-and-in dept

Two years ago we wrote a post about famed burger-slinger In-N-Out's bullshit strategy for keeping its trademarks in Australia active and valid. That strategy amounts to the chain doing a popup restaurant briefly once every five years, essentially the minimum to keep a trademark active through use in the country. This has been going on for some time, which makes it fairly clear that In-N-Out has no real plans to have a permanent presence in Australia. And, yet, it goes about keeping its trademarks active.

Why? Well, at least in part, apparently, so that it can bully other companies that might brand themselves in a similar fashion. From our earlier post, In-N-Out went after an Australian burger chain calling itself Down 'N Out, which used marketing that was clearly an homage to the California chain. That kind of homage would certainly land a company in trademark hot water in a competing market... except In-N-Out is only in the Australian market in the most transient sense possible. Despite that, an Australian court recently ruled that Down 'N Out wasn't complying with its trademark ruling in favor of In-N-Out and, even though the former plans to appeal the ruling, it must now turn over all physical signage for Down 'N Out to In-N-Out and destroy all digital material for that brand as well.

In May, Hashtag Burgers again drew the ire of In-N-Out by setting up a pop-up Down N' Out food truck in Marrickville. It has said it plans to lodge an appeal against the decision. Justice Katzmann said her decision was "not to be treated as provisional" pending the outcome of any appeal. She refused to grant a stay of her decision to stop it taking effect during the appeal process.

Justice Katzmann ordered Hashtag Burgers to hand over to In-N-Out's Australian lawyers within 60 days all material bearing the Down N' Out logo including "signage, packaging, promotional material, advertising, brochures, pamphlets, merchandise, stationery and business cards".

Ironically, that handing over of branding will likely take a great deal of postage to complete because, again, In-N-Out doesn't have any actual presence in Australia. Instead, they'll likely have to turn that material over to the California chain's local lawyers while the appeal process runs its course. But let's not lose sight of how laughable this all is. In-N-Out doesn't have a presence in Australia beyond a popup store strategy that goes off twice a decade. In other words, the court is aggressively ruling against an entity within the country and in favor of a foreign company blatantly making a farce of that country's trademark laws.

Yes Down 'N Out used homage branding harkening back to In-N-Out. And yes its executives have joked around in past communications that they might want to change that branding to avoid getting sued. All of that would be great evidence of willfull trademark infringement... if In-N-Out had any customers in Australia to potentially confuse. But a handful of popup store burger-buyers once every five years seems to me to be a bit of a stretch.

Filed Under: australia, competition, down 'n out, homage, trademark
Companies: hashtag burgers, in-n-out

In 'N Out Burger Continues Its Bullshit Pop-Up Technique To Keep Trademarks It Isn't Actually Using

from the literally-in-and-out dept

Roughly a year back, we discussed famed American burger chain In 'N Out Burger cynical process for keeping trademarks it owns in certain countries in place, despite the chain having no actual presence in the country. You might be wondering how a company with no storefronts or delivery business in a given country could possibly hold valid trademark rights to its brand, given trademark law's requirement that companies actually use their trademarks in commerce to keep them. The answer to that is that In 'N Out flies staff out to several countries once every couple of years and launches a pop-up store, slinging burgers for a short period of time before packing everything up and heading home. The chain claims that this is done to raise its profile in other countries for an eventual permanent launch. Except that those launches never actually happen.

It's all very frustrating, if for no other reason than nobody can figure out why In 'N Out cares so much about trademark rights in a country it sure doesn't seem to have any interest in doing business in. Well, the confusion continues, as In 'N Out has announced it will once again launch pop-up stores in New Zealand.

American fast food chain In-N-Out Burger will open a pop-up store in Auckland on Thursday, sparking hopes for a permanent restaurant.

The pop-up store will be be open between 11am and 2pm at the Portland Public House.

But if history is anything to go by, burger lovers should not get too excited.

No, they shouldn't. Even this Stuff post indicates that there doesn't seem to be any question as to the chain's doing this strictly to keep its trademarks from being invalidated. The law in New Zealand requires a trademark holder to engage in "genuine use" of the mark within the country three years from it being granted. These pop-up stores are In 'N Out attempting to fulfill that genuine use requirement, although there are questions as to whether or not such a use actually counts as genuine.

Lawyer Clair Foggo, from Potter IP, said the company could be trying to protect its trademark in New Zealand.

"What happens is if you have a trademark registration, you have three years from the date of registration to use it. If you don't use it in a genuine way it become vulnerable to revocation."

If a trademark is not used within a three year period and lapses, a person can apply to have it removed from the register and may file their own application for the trademark claim, Foggo said.

"It sounds like they are trying to use their trademark in a genuine way, not just putting out some merchandise or using it on social media," she said. "However there may be some question whether operating a one day pop up shop amounts to "genuine" or token use."

So what counts as genuine use? It's delightfully ambiguous, of course. That ambiguity melts away, however, once you consider what the purpose of trademark law actually is, which is to prevent public confusion as to the source and association of goods and services. In that context, fleeting uses by major foreign brands preventing domestic companies from making use of similar branding makes absolutely zero sense. In fact, you could argue that In 'N Out's tactic achieves the opposite. Ironically, the use of pop-up stores only increases the brand awareness of the company within New Zealand, where the company mostly does not bother doing business. It may be only because of these pop-up stores, in other words, that a domestic company using similar branding would create confusion.

Bottom line: it would be quite nice if In 'N Out would stop playing these trademark games, and ceased using hamfisted and cynical tactics just to have trademark rights in a country it doesn't want to do business in.

Filed Under: burgers, new zealand, pop-up stores, trademark
Companies: in-n-out

In-N-Out Sends Punny Cease And Desist Over Fairly Clear Trademark Infringement

from the not-bad dept

You may have heard the general mantra that "puns are the lowest form of comedy." Heathens say that, because puns are great and, if I had my way, there would be a legal requirement to use at least one in every legal document this country produces. They can also be used to lighten up what would otherwise be heavy legal actions. Such is the case with In-N-Out Burger, which decided to respond to what is pretty likely trademark infringement with a pun-laden cease and desist.

We'll start with the product that was likely infringing on In-N-Out's trademarks, which itself involves some punnery.

The back and forth banter all started on July 12 when Seven Stills took to Instagram and posted a photo of its soon-to-be-released "barrel aged neopolitan milkshake stout." The beverage's logo featured In-N-Out's famous red palm tree lining, arrow logo and the phrase "In-N-Stout Beer."

In case you're wondering just how clearly Seven Stills' use of In-N-Out's trade dress was, here is the brewery's own Instagram post.

In case you're somehow unaware of In-N-Out's log and cup design, the In-N-Stout effort above is a very clear play on it:

So, yeah, despite the two companies being in different markets, this sort of use could still cause some kind of confusion and create an impression of affiliation between the two entities. If you really want to argue any of that, I suppose you can, but this is probably trademark infringement.

In-N-Out, which we have criticized in the past for some dodgy trademark behavior, deserves some credit here instead for firing off a cease and desist that certainly didn't take itself too seriously.

After In-N-Out caught wind of the idea, its legal team crafted a cease and desist letter jam-packed with puns related to beer making.

"Based on your use of our marks, we felt obligated to hop to action in order to prevent further issues from brewing," part of the letter read.

The C&D actually had way more puns than just those, however. Given the gentle and congenial nature of the C&D, in fact, Seven Stills made a point to post the entire thing to its Instagram account, as well as agreeing to alter its beer's trade dress to remove In-N-Out's branding from the can.

If you can't see that, it reads:

Dear Seven Sills Brewery & Distillery,

We at In-N-Out Burgers ("In-N-Out") received multiple reports of your "In-N-Stout Beer" featured on your social media pages. The In-N-Stout Beer label features In-N-Out's trademarks including our palm tree and arrow logos along with a substantial similarity to In-N-Out's brand name. Based on your use of our marks, we felt obligated to hop to action in order to prevent further issues from brewing.

In case you are not already aware, In-N-Out owns multiple trademark registrations in these marks. As you may expect, we tap into a lot of effort in protecting our marks, which includes limiting their use by others.

Please understand that use of our marks by third parties ales us to the extent that this could cause confusion in the marketplace or prevent us from protecting our marks in the future. We hope you can appreciate, however, that we are attempting to clearly distill our rights by crafting an amicable approach with you, rather than barrel through this.

Accordingly, we request that you refrain from further use of In-N-Out's marks by not selling or promoting items featuring our marks, and removing images of "In-N-Stout" and any other items featuring our marks from your website and social media pages. Please contact us as soon as possible, so this does not continue to ferment. Thank you for your time and consideration, and we look froward to resolving this in good spirits.

The lesson here isn't that there wasn't some other way to work this out beyond a cease and desist notice. No, the point here is that trademark issues can reach amicable ends if only companies are congenial with one another... and use as many puns as possible.

Filed Under: cease and desist, in-n-stout, puns, trademark
Companies: in-n-out, seven sills

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?

Filed Under: australia, trademark
Companies: in-n-out