|
|
|
|
|
|
by pdonis
2233 days ago
|
|
|
> Doordash lists every restaurant they deem worthy of delivery in a particular area - the restaurant doesn't have to be part of a contractual agreement with them. Hm. If they're doing that, and using every restaurant's trademarked content in their ads without an agreement in place, I think that would be a problem legally. > In this case, it doesn't really sound like the owner of the restaurant was on the Doordash platform. The blog post doesn't seem to clearly indicate that they do. The post explicitly states that there is a contractual agreement: "Our only recourse is to immediately terminate our contract with GrubHub and DoorDash, which we are considering doing." |
|
|
I'm not sure about that. How would non-authorized resellers work then? In the most absurd case, sellers on Ebay wouldn't be allowed to say what exactly they're selling. You would have to list something as "a watch" instead of "Casio G-Shock". Same goes for any used car lot, etc.
The primary cause here would be "trademark infringement", which requires "likelihood of confusion" in the marketplace [1]. Doordash isn't particularly causing confusion here. They do, in fact, sell Saddleback BBQ from Saddleback BBQ. The only source of confusion I can think of is that the link doesn't take you directly to Saddleback BBQ, but rather to a generic list of BBQ restaurants (which Saddleback BBQ is on).
[1] https://cyber.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm#7