In-N-Out Files Lawsuit Against Food Delivery Startup DoorDash

They don't need legal standing. They're a big company, and big companies sue people they don't like into bankruptcy. The basis of the claim only needs to look vaguely possibly meritorious for the lawsuit to be forced through the uber-expensive court circuit.

Only way to avoid being sued into bankruptcy after you've pissed off someone big enough is for your company to be doing dozens of millions each year at minimum, and thus, have the resources to tolerate the associated legal fees. If you make someone mad before this happens, expect to be forced to shut down.

That's the trademark side of the case, and yes, In N Out could probably successfully argue that usage of their logo implies endorsement and/or is likely to create consumer confusion and that it's therefore a trademark violation. That's pretty easy for DoorDash to put to rest; just stop putting In N Out's logo on the site. A few good, highly-visible disclaimers would probably put any remainder of a trademark claim to rest.

A modified menu would be tougher. You can argue that there may be copyright infringement, and that may be valid to a limited extent, but DoorDash could put up a version of the menu that wasn't copyrighted, as its heart, menus are factual arrangements, and facts are not original creative works subject to copyright (though a specific arrangement of those facts may be). In N Out could also claim that there's trademark infringement if DoorDash is using trademarked food names, but I think it'd be a harder argument to win, since DoorDash can argue it's a nominative use.

IANAL.

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?

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?

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