Case Study on Burger King Intellectual Property

Introduction

Intellectual property rights is a very significant issue in today's globalized and interconnected world. Pirating movies, books, and songs to replicate goods and even drugs is a serious issue. This is kind of stealing someone's hard work and using it for own benefits. That is why patent, royalty, and trademark have been created along with the World Intellectual Property Rights Organization to safeguard original work. One such case is of Burger King which happened around six decades back. Burger King is a popular chain in the US and it has franchisee all over the US. However, Burger King is not allowed to open its shop in Matton, IL (Edwards, 2013). There is already a restaurant with the name Burger King which was opened by Gene and Betty Hoots in the 1950s. Hoots started an ice cream shop with name 'Frigid Queen' but after expanding its offering, they choose its name as Burger King and they also registered it with state authorities. Interestingly, current Burger King chain was founded in Florida around the same time but they didn't have any operations in IL at that time but when they choose to open their franchise in the state, a legal battle was ensured.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Illinois-based restaurant was quite small and his single lawyer could not take onto a team of six lawyers fielded by bigger Burger King. Court rules in favor of bigger BK as they have registered their trademark with federal authorities and so it will take precedence over the state. However, the court also took into account the authenticity of the smaller rival as it had registered its trademark earlier but with state authorities (Gummel, 2014). The arbitration agreement prevented eviction of the tenant to make their claims in the court since they neglected the disclaimer of the Burger Illinois during the advertisement. Both Gene and Betty Hoots trademarks had accepted and agreed to the terms and condition for opening a business without having done any research whether what they advertised was fraudulent and was causing harm to the consumers. In this case, the negligence is on their account prevented them from suing the landlord for the damages caused to them (Gummel, 2014).

The court checked the terms of the tenants while the agreement was made and if there was still a misrepresentation of information by then, Burger King would not manage to claim for compensation. This was a case analysis which demounted issues like personal assaults, negligence, trespassing and legal principles which are not hindered by the parties involved. Law jurisprudence is also used during misrepresentation of some facts which might be taken to be illegal and negligence (Profit and Laws, 2012). In such a case, there is the rule of mediating the business and the customers to rule out which party has to be fined. According to the law of job performance act 576, there is judicial law in U.S trademark that should be a serious concern regarding the treatment of the customers and special relation when conducting the bank business.

In striking balance, the court allowed bigger BK to carry out using that name and operations in IL but barred from opening a franchise in 20 miles' radius of original BK restaurant in Mattoon (Edwards, 2013). This case is exemplary because the court has protected the intellectual property rights of a far smaller player against a giant with a very extraordinary ruling. Justice is valued if is unbiased and protects even weakest but right party according to the law while punishing the stronger but wrong party. In this case, neither party was actually wrong and the court has shown its acute senses by delivering this kind of judgment.

References

Edwards, J. (2013). Burger King Is Banned From Opening Within 20 Miles Of This Original, Mom-And-Pop Burger King Sign. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/burger-king-is-banned-from-opening-within-20-miles-of-this-original-mom-and-pop-burger-king-sign-2013-6?IR=T as at 18th January 2019.

Gummel, D. (2014). Burger King of Florida, Inc. v. Hoots. Retrieved from http://gccwebsites.com/law/burger-king-of-florida-inc-v-hoots-2/ as at 18th January 2019.

Profit and Laws. (2012). Burger King vs. Burger King. Retrieved from https://www.profitandlaws.com/war-story-burger-king-vs-burger-king/ as at 18th January.