
In-N-Out Files Lawsuit Against Food Delivery Startup DoorDash - 7Figures2Commas
http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/11/in-n-out-files-lawsuit-against-food-delivery-startup-doordash/
======
danso
FWIW, Eater published an article 5 days ago that discussed examples of New
York eateries who are either OK or annoyed with being listed without
permission

[http://ny.eater.com/2015/11/6/9678206/door-dash-delivery-
nyc](http://ny.eater.com/2015/11/6/9678206/door-dash-delivery-nyc)

> _But not all restaurants on DoorDash know that they 're listed. Tommy
> Ferrick, owner of Delilah's Steaks in Greenpoint, says he rejected an offer
> from a DoorDash salesperson months ago due to a 20 to 25 percent commission
> fee. More than 50 percent of his cheesesteak business is from delivery, and
> he's already paying GrubHub a commission that ends up being three times
> higher than his rent every month. He's currently trying to get more people
> to just order directly through the restaurant. But a few weeks ago, his
> business started getting pick-up orders from DoorDash. He looked on the site
> and was shocked to see the Delilah's Steaks logo and full menu listed as an
> available restaurant, with significant price markups. A cheesesteak costs
> $11 in the shop, for example, but DoorDash charged $16.95 for it. "I was
> livid," says Ferrick, who worries about quality control for deliveries he
> doesn't know about._

Doughnut Plant seems meh about it:

> _Still, DoorDash lists three of four Doughnut Plants shops on the site
> without the company 's permission — but PostMates, Doughnut Plant's
> preferred delivery merchant, did reach out before posting the menu,
> according to the bakery's creative director Jeff Magness. The Doughnut Plant
> logo DoorDash posts is also incomplete, Magness adds. "I don't like [that]
> it makes it look like we are working with them," he writes in an email.
> "That said, we haven't received complaints from customers."_

~~~
cmadan
They should just use their containers to advertise the app and offer a small
discount (10% or so) and then Doordash/Grubhub becomes a marketing channel for
their app. Thats what I'd do.

~~~
marcusgarvey
That's brilliant.

------
trevordev
I am not a fan of DoorDash's business techniques. DoorDash sent a flyer to my
house false advertising a coupon code. I spent half an hour creating an order
only to realize that the coupon they sent me was different from what the flyer
said. When I called to complain they acknowledged their error but said they
wouldn't do anything and that I should just place an order anyways.

------
hartator
> Fast food restaurant In-N-Out, known for its delicious burgers and secret
> sauce, is suing food delivery startup DoorDash, TMZ reported earlier today.
> In-N-Out, which filed the lawsuit on Nov. 6, 2015, claims trademark
> infringement and unfair competition. Basically, In-N-Out wants DoorDash to
> stop delivering their delicious food because of concerns around quality,
> food handling and safety.

Why using so many times the word delicious? Moreover, that's not really the
scope of the article.

~~~
lzr_io
Same goes for the DoorDash spokesperson's statement. That blurb had an entropy
so close to zero they just could have left it out.

Is this just lazy reporting or is it an effect of the leaking of corporate
speech into everyday language? Asked differently: Have we become so used to
the marketing jargon that even reporters start picking it up in their
articles?

~~~
massysett
Reporters certainly pick up "sharing economy" jargon, not aware they have been
thoroughly co-opted by marketers.

~~~
icebraining
_not aware_

I wouldn't be so sure.

------
jeffdavis
This does not seem outrageous to me on either side. DoorDash wants to satisfy
demand and grow their business; In-n-Out wants to protect its brand.

The details will determine who is right -- hence the lawsuit.

------
bobbles
Services like this have taken off in Sydney (HungryAndLazy, Menulog, etc)

It's made getting delivery food here SO much better, as it's many smaller
family owned stores that now get massive business if they have better food

~~~
neotek
The difference is that restaurants sign up to offer their existing delivery
services to customers through H&L and Menulog, who are merely the conduit
through which orders are placed. It's still the restaurant making the
deliveries, and they can choose to pull out at any time.

It's crazy how popular they've become; just about everybody I know uses
Menulog and Eat Now to order food, and if your restaurant isn't on it, we'll
probably never know about you.

------
Hilyin
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.

~~~
greggman
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.

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

~~~
rhino369
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.

~~~
tedunangst
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.

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

------
thedogeye
For a second I thought In-N-Out had hacked the Streisand effect perfectly, but
alas DoorDash has indeed removed them from the app.

------
alaskamiller
When someone represents themselves as an agent of another merchant but don't
have a relationship with that merchant you're literally just buying something
from the back of a van.

In-n-out gets exposed to liabilities and bad pr. No brainer.

Funny enough by suing DoorDash actually gets bad PR which to them is still
good PR. A lot more people will know about DoorDash than before. Pretty
naughty to agree to stop then renege on it, then disregard all attempts there
after. Almost as if it was deliberate...

But getting a $5 burger in your mouth in 45 minutes with a $3 delivery fee is
the boring part. The larger context of all this is how companies use
terminology these days.

Per DoorDash marketing:

 _Through the DoorDash marketplace, people can purchase goods from local
merchants and have them delivered in less than 45 minutes - thanks to our
revolutionary logistics technology._

Per DoorDash TOS:

 _THE COMPANY DOES NOT PROVIDE LOGISTICS OR COURIER SERVICES, AND THE COMPANY
IS NOT A LOGISTICS CARRIER. IT IS UP TO THE THIRD PARTY COURIER OR LOGISTICS
PROVIDER, COURIER OR VEHICLE OPERATOR TO OFFER COURIER SERVICES WHICH MAY BE
SCHEDULED THROUGH USE OF THE SOFTWARE OR SERVICE. THE COMPANY OFFERS
INFORMATION AND A METHOD TO OBTAIN SUCH THIRD PARTY COURIER SERVICES, BUT DOES
NOT AND DOES NOT INTEND TO PROVIDE COURIER SERVICES OR ACT IN ANY WAY AS A
COURIER, AND HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY FOR ANY COURIER OTHER THAN
STATED HEREIN SERVICES PROVIDED TO YOU BY SUCH THIRD PARTIES._

Per Postmates marketing:

 _Postmates ' revolutionary urban logistics & on-demand delivery platform
connects customers with local couriers, who purchase and deliver goods from
any restaurant or store in a city._

Per Postmates TOS:

 _THE COMPANY DOES NOT PROVIDE LOGISTICS OR COURIER SERVICES, AND THE COMPANY
IS NOT A LOGISTICS CARRIER. IT IS UP TO THE THIRD PARTY COURIER OR LOGISTICS
PROVIDER, COURIER OR VEHICLE OPERATOR (COLLECTIVELY, THE “POSTMATE”) TO OFFER
COURIER SERVICES WHICH MAY BE SCHEDULED THROUGH USE OF THE SOFTWARE OR
SERVICE. THE COMPANY OFFERS INFORMATION AND A METHOD TO OBTAIN SUCH THIRD
PARTY COURIER SERVICES, BUT DOES NOT AND DOES NOT INTEND TO PROVIDE COURIER
SERVICES OR ACT IN ANY WAY AS A COURIER, AND HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY OR
LIABILITY FOR ANY COURIER._

And of course the grand daddy of them all:

 _By seamlessly connecting riders to drivers through our apps, we make cities
more accessible, opening up more possibilities for riders and more business
for drivers._

And per Uber TOS:

 _The Services constitute a technology platform that enables users of Uber 's
mobile applications or websites provided as part of the Services (each, an
"Application") to arrange and schedule transportation and/or logistics
services with third party providers of such services, including independent
third party transportation providers and third party logistics providers under
agreement with Uber or certain of Uber's affiliates ("Third Party Providers").
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT UBER DOES NOT PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION OR LOGISTICS
SERVICES OR FUNCTION AS A TRANSPORTATION CARRIER._

A lot of aerobatics to contort and redefine words so that one gets the
branding benefit of the word's previous meaning but suffer none of word's
consequences.

Is this a better or worse turn than the naughtiness of YouTube hypergrowth
days shielded by DMCA safe harbor? Or how Facebook drags their feet dealing
with users that steal content because it allows them to juice up their view
counts?

~~~
massysett
The Postmates and Uber marketing materials look like they were written with
lawyers involved. They make the companies sound like third party middlemen.
The DoorDash one is less slick. "People can purchase goods from local
merchants" sounds like the merchants are on board, which In-n-Out clearly is
not.

~~~
alaskamiller
The local merchants are on board in that to get listed DoorDash wants a 20%
cut from the merchants as lead gen services. Obviously they didn't get that
from big brands but offer it as a means of bolstering up DoorDash's platform
value.

I'm curious as to how does one do the dance of saying you coordinate logistics
but are not a logistics service provider when the people showing up are
wearing your logo, paid by you, and use your app for order information,
confirmation, and directions.

------
fit2rule
You know what I wish would happen? Everyone would just get along - the burger
guys, the tech guys. Just deliver the things with drones already guys, mmkay?
I need that. I live in Europe. I haven't had a proper burger in decades.

------
untilHellbanned
Dead unicorn list

1\. Homejoy

2\. Theranos

3\. Doordash

4\. DraftKings/FanDuel

5\. Fab

6\. Evernote

7\. ...

------
ronyeh
"...concerns around quality, food handling and safety."

I completely understand. I used DoorDash exactly once to order from a local
Chinese restaurant. The food was delivered by a dude who looked disinterested,
and the containers were crushed and leaking lots of brown sauce into the
plastic bag. It wasn't a great experience. Whose fault was it? I dunno. But I
haven't ordered from DoorDash or that Chinese restaurant since.

~~~
huhtenberg
They may have a point with the lawsuit then. It _is_ a matter of maintaining
control over quality perception of their brand.

Remember the case of Cristal (champagne) vs. the rappers from 2006? Similar
idea -
[http://www.economist.com/node/6905921](http://www.economist.com/node/6905921)

------
beedogs
Good. This latest generation of "doing shit for lazy people" startups really
needs a good wake-up call.

------
whoiskevin
I don't know how DoorDash could make In-N-Out food worse. Seriously their food
is not good. I see the trademark angle but the quality? Please they should
start with making something worth while.

~~~
BinaryIdiot
I'm going to go down the off-topic path with you as I would agree with you. On
my last trip out to SF I tried them and I was really underwhelmed. As far as
fast food burgers and fries went I enjoyed Carl's Jr. far more.

The fries at In-N-Out is an interesting paradox. Without sauce they taste
almost like nothing; the blandest fast food fries I've ever eaten. With sauce?
It's okay. A bit too soggy for my liking but okay.

~~~
mixmastamyk
INO competes at the $2-$3 burger level, and they are excellent for the price,
assuming you like their sauce (which can be skipped). You can't fairly compare
them with CJ's $6 burgers, or the $10 restaurant equivalent.

Their fries are made fresh on site, but they do tend to need salt.

~~~
BinaryIdiot
> You can't fairly compare them with CJ's $6 burgers, or the $10 restaurant
> equivalent.

That's fine; I mostly meant out of the fast food places you're supposed to go
to in CA I preferred them. As far as INO's fries are concerned I have yet to
find a fast food fry that I thought was worse than INO's :)

