In-N-Out Sues Australian Burger Joint, Despite Having No Restaurants In The Country

Furnished content.


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.

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.

0 comments, click here to add the first

We Interrupt Today's News With An Update From The Monkey Selfie Case

Furnished content.


In today's fast-paced news cycle it's easy to overlook the important things: the copyright status of the monkey selfie.Today we have learned nothing new about it, except that the case is not over yet. Which is itself significant, because the parties in the case had jointly moved to dismiss the appeal, and today that motion was denied. In its order denying the motion [pdf, embedded below] the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that while it had the power to dismiss an appeal if the parties so requested it, it did not have the obligation to do so if there were countervailing interests. And in this case, the Ninth Circuit found, there were countervailing interests requiring it to fully adjudicate the matter.It cited several other cases as analogs. As in Albers v. Eli Lily, "this case has been fully briefed and argued by both sides, and the court has expended considerable resources to come to a resolution. Denying the motion to dismiss ensures that 'the investment of public resources already devoted to this litigation will have some return.'" Furthermore, as was the case in Ford v. Strickland, "a decision in this developing area of the law would help guide the lower courts."Also, referencing Albers and Khouzam v. Ashcroft, the court noted that denying the dismissal of appeals prevents the parties from "manipulating precedent in a way that suits their institutional preferences."

As one of our colleagues once warned in a similar context, courts must be particularly wary of abetting 'strategic behavior' on the part of institutional litigants whose continuing interest in the development in the law may transcend their immediate interest in the outcome of a particular case. Suntharalinkam v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 822, 828 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (Kozinski, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing).

0 comments, click here to add the first