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 ...
The scouts and such groups have contracts with the manufacturers of those food products specifically for resale purposes..............
You know of any laws regarding private resale of food item?
Why yes, I do. If you are reselling a packaged product under the manufacturers name, specifically KK in the KK boxes without the manufacturers permission, it's called Franchise infringement........
He was purchasing a franchise product from a franchisee then reselling under the same product name at an inflated price without permission from the the franchise.
key words in KK corporate’s statement..... “....when he restarts his business”!
Lemons- make lemonade. It’s certainly what a donut store franchiser would think of-— since their eyes have to be on volume of sales. Air puffed nothings with lots of glaze... for markup along the lines of the 14 cents a cup cost basis for medium size coca-cola made from syrup/soda water mix and.. some ice— sold at currently $2.39 a medium cup.
Hard to calc the margin (include POS insurance, employee costs etc.) but leaving that out... the markup is 1607.14% per cup over cost. The profit is majorly in the beverage. Donuts— who knows. they sell a lot of coffee in their stores and other beverages.
Yeah-— got your Jerry Reed reference — East Bound and Down, loaded up and trucking.
Coor’s “milked” the entire movie (implication it was their brew crossing the Mississippi... and lot’s of college boys believed it was “rare”!!). Heh. Go Gators (ugh-a, ug-a... wha happened at the worlds largest cocktail party?).
Well I come back to my Craigs list example. Reselling an item and identifying its brand is common and happens a million times a day on Craig’s list and ebay. If its common practice and not Trademark infringement not being enforced there, why is it that it can be selectively enforced here? If a company doesn’t want to enforce its Trademark, then it loses its legal ability to enforce it. Same thing happens in patent law.
and in gator country, a friend living in a dorm room that is a National Register Historic Place building-— got a visit from an oldetimer who nostalgically knocked on his dorm door, intro’d himself as an old alumni (this was in the 70’s) from 50 plus years prior.
He asked “Is it still there?”. Answer: “What?” “here, let me check. They guy pulled out a pen knife put the end in a hidden space of the built in old coat closet... and an audible “click” was heard and the panel opened to an empty space.
The old fellow said “damn, it’s gone!, what a shame!” We used to keep 5 or 6 jugs in there, last us couple months when we could get some more!!”
Where they kept their moonshine, bought over the county line and kept for easy access. My buddy was stunned. A pleasant memory, his story. Retired neurosurgeon (comforting to know he never drank very much, so knew nothing of hooch).
If he was making donuts and calling them KK donuts, that would be a trademark violation. He was buying KK donuts from KK and selling them to his own customers. There was no trademark infringement. Those were his KK donuts. He was free to sell them as what they were. By taking his money KK relinquished any control they had over those donuts and he was free to sell them.
Obviously KK realized they were wrong to tell him to stop selling his own donuts.
Isn't that how franchises work?
Well that's where you're wrong again bro. You're selling individual items, not boxes of a specific product week after week after week that are being sold under the product's name......Specifically, KK........
Try again..........Sheesh!
I would agree that if he used the words Krispy Kreme in his business, that would be a trademark violation, but if he was just selling the donuts under a non-trademarked name, then KK could not stop him.
The fact that he had his own business with Krispy Kreme in the title would be a horse of a different color.
They can’t stop him from selling the donuts, but they can stop him from using their name in his business.
Should have just called it Donuthole Run, Donuts and the Bandit, or Donut Deliverance.
Bro, I am not sure its different. If I got taken to court for patent infringement by a patent owner but I can show that the patent owner was aware of millions of other people infringing his patent and didnt do anything about them previously, then the patent suit would likely be tossed as the owner should little care that his idea was already out in public being used and not being protected. So now he has selectively chosen to attack a single case of infringement?
If your correct, all I am asking is show me in law how it applies. I ask because I can think of so many cases where this occurs all over our country. Entrepreneurs making a living by buying in bulk and selling by piece.
Another example, if I buy a ware house and all inside unseen at an auction and it turns out to be full of Levi Jeans, I can re-sell them, on ebay for example, and I can advertise them as what they are. I would not name my business ‘Levi Jeans’, but I could certainly sell them under ‘Magnum’s Factory Warehouse’ and say what brand they were.
It is up to Levi to say in its own web site that if you want to guarantee that the product you get is not a knock-off, then buy directly from them.
That’s so sweet.
If he was advertising them as KK donuts he was using THEIR trademarked name to promote HIS business. That’s trademark violation. He can do whatever he wants with the donuts. He cannot do whatever he wants with their name, logo or slogan.
Legally they weren’t wrong. But the way everybody gets their panties in a twist every time a “big corporation” shuts down a “little guy” it was bad pr. So now they’ve entered into an agreement with him so he WON’T be violating their trademark, and all is well.
Not sure about the trademark issue. He’s selling KK donuts AS KK donuts.
The way you are putting it Best Buy could not advertise a SONY tv in their weekend fliers. If they were to change their name to Sony Buys, trademark infringement. Advertising a Sony tv for sale noting that Sony holds the trademark is legal even if Sony does not want them to.
Someone, but not KK. Maybe the states health department.
And if someone got sick from a moldy donut, he could be held liable.
Him, not KK.
If they lack an agreement yes. But Best Buy has a retail agreement with Sony which grants them the right to use Sony’s logo. And vice versa as you will sometimes see product commercials that mention where to buy. No noting trademark when you are violating it does NOTHING. Without some agreement it’s not your trademark to use, PERIOD.
And that’s where he ran into issues.
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.