Posted on 11/05/2019 10:18:16 AM PST by conservative98
Looks like Jayson Gonzalez is getting a sweet deal after all.
Krispy Kreme is reportedly giving the Minnesota college student 500 boxes of doughnuts after initially asking the 21-year-old to shut down his business of buying and reselling boxes of doughnuts.
[cut]
Krispy Kreme did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment, but in a statement to Business Insider, the brand said that once it learned Gonzalez was putting the money he made from the doughnut sales toward his goal of graduating from college debt-free, the company wanted to help.
"Our main concern is that the doughnuts Jayson sells maintain our high product quality standards, given the distance and manner in which he is transporting and distributing them. So, we are happy to work with Jayson as an independent operator to ensure consistent delivery of our high-quality doughnuts to our fans in Minnesota," the chain said.
"We wish Jayson great success and we're thrilled to help him achieve it by donating 500 dozen doughnuts when he restarts his business."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Depends on how he was advertising. If he was just saying he was reselling donuts that’s clean. If he was mentioning their trademarked brand KK has the right to shut him down.
If he was using their trademark they HAD to shut him down. Tons of jurisprudence already in place. Trademark holders are forced to aggressively defend their IP or risk losing it. The lawyer was right. They were right. But now they can “come to an agreement” and their trademark is defended for the next time.
Hmmm, still not sure I buy it. If I bought a Craftsman snowblower in 1985 and sold it on Craig’s List in 2018, advertising it as a 1985 Craftsman snowblower, I mentioned a trademark name. I still have done anything wrong or anything that doesn’t happen a million times a day. I’d make the same argument for reselling a car, gun, appliance, whatever. I still want to understand how this KK case is any different.
Trademarks are to protect against counterfeits, not against reselling an original item. See my previous post.
I say they flinched when the blowback came and successfully jumped out of the fire as their ass was getting singed.
He was selling their product in their box. Based on your premise I would have to remove all logos from my car when I am done with it sell it as a generic “car”
See the teensy little flaw in your logic?
When my girls were in high school, the local KK had a deal where students could bring in their report cards and KK would give them a free donut for every A. Hubby lived for report card time. :)
KK had a hole in their donurt argument.
No, that’s a flaw in YOUR logic. 1 off sales nobody cares about, those are private property transactions and not establishing a pattern of violating trademark. Establishing a resale BUSINESS that’s advertising somebody else’s logo and selling somebody else’ product regularly a pattern. Can’t do it.
The NCAA, NBA and NFL have a bunch of jurisprudence proving that wrong.
If the donuts have their name on it and he is advertising them as KK, they have something to do with it. Maybe they don’t want the blame when he sells a moldy donut with their name on it.
I was always a Dunkin’ Donuts guy. But I cant eat gluten anymore so non of it matters anymore.
I don’t mind giving up donuts. But Giving up pizza and lasagna is another story.
1 shot sale vs establishing a business. The difference is repetition. If you setup a booth at the swap meet where you’re reselling Craftsman products with their logo on display every weekend you are violating their trademark.
Specifically? Show me how the NBA or NFL protecting their brand (by preventing counterfeiters from selling NFL branded jerseys for example) relates to someone buying an ‘official’ jersey and selling it online at a later date.
Wow, magic!!! Turning donuts into bacon!
What a party trick.
It all depends on what state. But pretty much all of them are on the same page.
1931 law in Michigan (Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.465) makes it illegal to resell a ticket above its face value price without the written consent of the event operator and venue operator. ..
ok, I might be able to buy into that argument. But thats really a grey area now that would require going to court over. who determines when a hobby/part time/supplemental income source becomes a ‘business’? How do you judge when it becomes a viable business? Some percentage of the Trademark owners net? Or some percentage of the entrepreneurs total income? What if entrepreneur is below poverty level income? I dont think NBA jersey scalpers taking $100+ per counterfeit jersey fall into the same category as a college student.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.