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 ...
Exactly. And he calls his business Krispy Kreme Run Minnesota. With KK in the name. And he takes orders online.
https://www.facebook.com/KrispyKremeRunMinnesota
This is illegal and trademark infringement if KK wanted to pursue it which they won’t because of the Twitter mob backlash. They’ll just wait for him to get tired of doing it.
Agreed, and those laws specifically address ticket sales. You know of any laws regarding private resale of food item? Though thats not my habit, I dont know of any. Scouts and youth groups do it all the time.
How about advertising the showing of their games? Happens every superbowl. NCAA clamping down on anything that depicts a playoff tree every March. Ever actually bothered to listen to the disclaimer that comes before games? “Any depiction, rebroadcast or transmission of this game is strictly prohibited.” None of this is new. None of it is complicated. Trademarks have to be defended, and they are. Dozens of these cases hit the news every year. And the same crowd of people whine and bitch and moan and show they just don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.
Even he calls it a business and uses Krispy Kreme’s name as his own...
“Hi everyone, here is the next important update! I am pumped to announce that I will be able to continue the business soon,”
https://www.facebook.com/KrispyKremeRunMinnesota
This kid was asking for trouble.
That is trademark infringement. That must be fought. If he did that it is almost as dumb as calling it Krispy Kreme Konfections or KKK for short.
You’re funny. Also painfully wrong. And using really stupid illogic to raise strawmen that show you just don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. General used car dealers have very strict limitations on how they advertise their wares. Now certified used dealers that are tied to the brand...
That is not trademark that is copyright.
Having said all I have on this so far, I CAN see where KK could demand he change the name of his ‘business’. I can see that much easier than keeping him from re-selling the product.
Nobody is saying you can’t SELL. It’s the ADVERTISING OF A TRADEMARK YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO.
As long as you’re here the stupid is staying. Really, you’re a bleeding moron.
Your first year law student would be wrong and that's why he should stay in college.
As another poster mentioned, ticket scalping is illegal in most states and there is no difference between the tickets and these donuts.
Considering the quantities he is selling at an elevated price, he is in essence operating a small KK franchise without permission from the KK corporation.....
Nope, you are talking out your proverbial bottom. Since he advertised his business as Krispy Kreme it is infringement. Had he called Donut Sales he would not be infringing as long as he noted that KK was the trademark holder when reselling Krispy Kream donuts.
Yes, following this thread (and mostly siding with your comments), he maybe should change his business name to “doughnut delivery” or “doughnut resales” or something without the KK name.
I still would argue that an NCAA franchise is not food, and the FCC regulations and trademark/copyrights that apply for rebroadcasting (on govt leased airwaves) is not an equivalent for reselling privately owned property legally obtained.
But, I concede to you point even if I am not convinced it applies here. How many times a year must a elementary school kid set up his candy stand selling bags of M&M’s before it is called a business where Mars Confectionery comes and drags him into court?
As later pointed out, the kid using KK in his business name online is the more clear infringement.
KK is arranging a legal distributor set up for this enterprising college student... AND, just like Coors beer back in the day....
they are getting terrific advertisement for efforts to set up franchises in the areas the guy is selling them.
Can only legally stop him selling them as their brand— so— send him product and sign him up TO sell their brand... in areas where they don’t have any franchise stores to be hurt.
Whole thing might be a bright “guerrilla” marketing trick.
Better yet— get him a Schwans type truck to drive HOT KK donuts to this buyers.
So does that mean the Bandit is going to start hauling KK?
Nope. I’m right, and your need to put insults in every post shows you know it. But you can’t admit it.
Had he called it donut sales he would not have been infringing because he wasn’t using their trademark. Acknowledging the trademark does nothing. Well if it goes to court it proves you knew you were violating trademark.
You bring back a happy memory: when I was in college and Coors was still not pasteurized, a corrupt dealer sold us I think about 150 cases that my fraternity sold out of my dorm room for $5 a case. Liquor license? What’s that?
That only would apply if he were making counterfeit Krispy Kremes.
Doesn’t matter. The trademark is the NAME and LOGO and SLOGAN. Not the product. If he’d resold that as just donuts, no box, no logo, no mentioning of the brand he’d have been fine. Bring in trademarked words and pictures you’re in violation.
Actually the Mars company is usually involved in those things. Gives money to schools. Gets kids hooked on candy. It’s a win win.
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.