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

Furnished content.


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.

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.

0 comments, click here to add the first

NYPD Sued Over Its Illegal Use Of Sealed Arrest Records

Furnished content.


When police officers kill someone, the kneejerk reaction is to publicly disparage the dead, in hopes of making the deceased appear to have "deserved" to be killed, even if their actions during the incident didn't appear to justify the killing. To do this, officers dig into their databases and dredge up every arrest, citation, and documented interaction with law enforcement to make it appear as though the officers have (permanently) removed a threat from the streets, rather than simply applied excessive force until the person was dead.The NYPD is no different than other agencies. It did this following the killing of Eric Garner, leaking arrest records to press outlets in hopes of portraying the dead man as a persistent threat to public safety and police officers.But the NYPD breaks the law when it does this. State law is supposed to prevent access to sealed arrest records -- records that aren't tied to convictions. This law is in place to protect people from discrimination and harassment by making these unavailable to be used against them when being interviewed for jobs or seeking places to live, just to name a couple of examples.The NYPD isn't exempt from this law, but it sure seems to feel it is.

The New York Police Department has been training its officers to break a long-standing law that bars police from snooping in the sealed arrest records of millions of innocent people, according to court papers filed in a lawsuit last week.The news comes in a class-action lawsuit concerning the police department’s practice of flouting a state law designed to protect people from discrimination, harassment, and further legal consequences over old arrests that didn’t result in a conviction. The Bronx Defenders, a public defense organization, brought the legal action against New York City and the NYPD.

In court, lawyers from the New York City Law Department, which represents the city and the NYPD, don’t deny that they’re accessing the records the law says should be sealed. Instead, they’ve argued that the law actually allows police to access sealed records without a court order. Judge Alexander Tisch rejected those arguments outright in a 2019 ruling, finding that NYPD is, in fact, bound by the law and that if the department “were seeking sealed information for an investigation, it would have to make an application to the court.”

The NYPD’s trainings contain directions contrary to the Sealing Statutes while, at the same time, the NYPD provides officers with routine access to millions of sealed arrest records.

0 comments, click here to add the first