"Customer service" pranksters troll Chipotle customers


#1

[Read the post]


#2

Explosive diarrhea with every order, that spells satisfaction.


#3

So how do I get winning in my blood? Is it by giving others E. coli?


#4

Didn’t we have this last month, with Target? I’m excited this is catching on.Come on guys, do your part! If we each just pick one corporation, we can bring this system down.


#5

Protip: Chipotle on Wednesday, food poisoning Thursday, recovering Friday and ready for the weekend.
Repeat as necessary. Or until you die, at which point it won’t be necessary, so really just repeat!


#6

I hope these guys don’t have any assets, because there’s nothing new about this.

They are committing a form of commercial fraud well-practiced in 19th century. I don’t think what they are doing violates any criminal laws (although when the start talking about food safety, they are getting close to the line), but the civil tort is obvious. If you knowingly trash a trademark, you are engaging in a form of vandalism, just as if you threw a brick at their neon sign.

You are on the hook for damages.

There is an exemption for satire – A comedian on-stage is pretty safe — but these dudes don’t seem very careful.

Corporate legal departments can move slowly, but are soulless and relentless when told to crush someone.

I hope they are having fun, and I really hope they don’t have any assets or derive any income from this goofing off.


#7

It’s pretty clearly satire, unless you think that a fast casual chain would really test its salad for E. coli by serving it to customers, in which case you’d fail the “reasonable person” standard that trademark law applies to cases of consumer confusion. Furthermore, truth is a defense against libel/slander, and Chipotle did have factual incidents of E. coli and/or norovirus contamination, so alluding to them doesn’t constitute making false claims.


#8

I’ll get right on the phone to Nike, these guys are totally going to get in trouble now!

Satire is easily protected under the First, written or performed or whatever. It’s not their fault the people they are responding to don’t get it. There’s no real case here.

Now trademark use, there’s a case to be made there, but using a stock photo of a burrito or whatever would keep them safe.


#9

Not even. They’re not using the trademark to sell food, or even engage in trade at all. Trademark keeps you from selling your own fizzy sugar water with a Pepsi logo on it, not from all use of the logo.

Although that might not keep Pepsi from bringing suit (and losing…)


#10

If they are using the Target logo and pretending to have a relationship with the company then it’s an issue. However, I think even their Target logo was the opposite concentric red and white, where what is red in Target is white in their version. But it’s not about trade in this case but misrepresentation as part of the company. I can’t put on a Pepsi shirt and walk into an establishment and tell them to throw out all their Pepsi products due to “an e coli infestation.”


#11

Well that’s a lousy attitude. Have you even tried?


#12

Sir, I’ve seen a documentary about the results of hijinks where one misrepresents themselves and have no inclination to return to high school as a form of punishment.


#13

Unlike my esteemed colleagues, I think you’re right - this is a form of sabotage. Just because it’s funny doesn’t mean it’s not political. Maybe it’s a form of civil disobedience.

As for assets, only a few people have those any more, and the 0.01% aren’t playing games on Twitter.


#14

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.