Burger King legal issues

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Burger King
Type Public (NYSE: BKC)
Founded December 4, 1954 in Miami, Florida, USA
Founder James McLamore and David Edgerton
Headquarters 5505 Blue Lagoon Drive,
Miami, Florida (actually in Fountainbleau, Florida)
Key people Brian Thomas Swette (Chairman)
John Chidsey (CEO)
Ben K. Wells (CFO)
Industry Restaurants
Products Fast Food
(hamburgers • chicken • french fries • soft drinks • milkshakes • salads • desserts • breakfast)
Revenue ▲$2.234 billion USD (2007)[1]
Operating income ▲$290.00 million USD (2007)[1]
Net income ▲$148 million USD (2007)[1]
Employees 37,001 (2006)[1]
Parent Burger King Holdings Inc.
Website burgerking.com
This box: view • talk • edit

As with other multi-national corporations, international fast food restaurant chain Burger King has had its share of controversies and legal issues over the course of its existence. Issues involving a myriad of topics have affected all areas of the company. Depending upon its ownership and executive staff at the time, its responses to these challenges have varied from acceding to demands to refusal to concede its position regardless of the outcome.[2]

Trademark issues involving the similarly named Burger King in Mattoon, Illinois led to a lawsuit whose outcome helped define the scope of the Lanham act in the United States; an existing trademark held by a shop of the same name in Queensland forced the company to change its name in Australia.[3][4] Several legal decisions have set contractual law precedents in regards to long-arm statutes, the limitations of franchise agreements, and ethical business practices; many of these decisions have helped define general business dealings that continue to shape the entire marketplace.[5][6]

Controversies and disputes with groups such as PETA over the welfare of animals, governmental and social agencies over health issues, and unions and trade groups over labor relations, have touched on concepts of animal rights, corporate responsibility, and social justice.[7][8][9] Issues of cultural sensitivity have arisen in parts of the world that have caused problems in the different communities the company serves.[10] How the company has responded to these controversies has drawn praise from some and scorn from others.[11][12][13]

Contents

[edit] Cases of note

[edit] Burger King Corporation v. Hungry Jack's Pty Limited

For more details on this topic, see Hungry Jack's.
([2001] NSWCA 187)

In 1991, Hungry Jack's Pty Limited renewed its franchise agreement with Burger King Corporation which allowed the Hungry Jack's to license third party franchisee, however, one of the conditions of the agreement was that Hungry Jack's had to open a certain number of stores each year for the term of the contract. In 1996, shortly after the Australian trademark on the Burger King name lapsed, Burger King Corporation made a claim that Hungry Jack's had violated the conditions of the renewed franchise agreement by failing to the expand the chain at the rate defined in the contract and sought to terminate the agreement. Under the aegis of this claim, Burger King Corporation in partnership with Royal Dutch Shell's Australian division Shell Company of Australia Ltd., began to open its own stores in 1997 beginning in Sydney and throughout the Australian regions of New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory and Victoria.[14][15][16] In addition, BK sought to limit HJ's ability to open new locations in the country, whether they were corporate locations or third-party licensees.[17]

As a result of Burger King's actions, Hungry Jack's owner Jack Cowin and his company Competitive Foods Australia, began legal proceedings in 2001 against the Burger King and its parent Burger King Corporation claiming the company had violated the conditions of the master franchising agreement and was in breech of the contract. The Supreme Court of New South Wales agreed with Cowin and determined that BK had violated the terms of the contract and awarded Hungry Jack's $46.9 million AUD ($41.6 million 2001 US dollars).[18] The case introduced the American legal concept of good faith negotiations into the Australian legal system, which until the time of the verdict had been rarely used in the Australian court systems.[19][17] In its decision, the Court said that Burger King had failed to act in good faith during contract negotiations by seeking to include standards and clauses that would engineer a default of the franchise agreement, allowing the company to limit the number of new Hungry Jack’s branded restaurants and ultimately claim the Australian market as its own, a purpose that was extraneous to the agreement.[20][17][21]

After Burger King Corporation lost the case, it decided to terminate its business in the country and sold its operations and assets to its New Zealand franchise group, Trans-Pacific Foods. The terms of the sale had TPF assume oversight of the Burger King franchises in the region as the Burger King brand's master franchisee. Trans-Pacific Foods administered the chain's 81 locations until September 2003 when the new management team of Burger King Corporation reached an agreement with Hungry Jack's Pty Ltd to re-brand the existing Burger King locations to Hungry Jack's and make HJP the sole master franchisee of both brands. An additional part of the agreement required Burger King Corporation to provide administrative and advertising support as to insure a common marketing scheme for the company and its products.[22] Trans-Pacific Foods transferred its control of the Burger King franchises to Hungry Jack's Pty Ltd, which subsequently renamed the remaining Burger King locations as "Hungry Jack's".[15][23]

[edit] Burger King v. Rudzewicz

For more details on this topic, see Burger King v. Rudzewicz.
(471 U.S. 462)

In 1965, two Michigan businessmen, John Rudzewicz and Brian MacShara, entered into a franchise agreement with Burger King to run a restaurant in Detroit. After attending training courses at regional Burger King training facilities in Michigan and in the Florida headquarters on how to run a Burger King franchise, they began operation of their new business. Sales began to decline at the location after several years, and because of their financial difficulties, they failed to pay their required franchise fees and rent service to Burger King Corporation. This prompted BK to file a lawsuit in Florida in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for breach of contract and trademark infringement against Rudzewicz and MacShara because they continued operation of their restaurant after they were served notice to vacate the property.[6]

The District Court found that Florida has personal jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute. They also found for Burger King and ordered Rudzewicz to close the restaurant, to which Rudzewicz and MacShae appealed. In their appeal, they claimed that since they were residents of Michigan, and because the claims did not arise within the Southern District of Florida, that District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. Additionally it was claimed that the long-arm statute violated the 14th Amendment and was unconstitutional. Citing a similar case, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed with the defendants and overturned the lower court's decision.[5] In turn, Burger King Corporation appealed the Appellate Court's ruling to the US Supreme Court and was granted a hearing.[6]

In its decision, the Supreme Court overturned the Appellate Court and found that Florida does have jurisdiction in the case. The Court concluded that the defendants, Rudzewicz and MacShae, sought out their franchise in the state of Florida and were availed of the protections of that state and were, therefore, subject to jurisdiction there. Additionally, the Court reasoned that the defendants had a "substantial and continuing" relationship with Burger King in Florida and that due process would not be violated because the defendants should have reasonably anticipated being summoned into court in Florida for breach of contract.[5][6][24]

[edit] Burger King of Florida, Inc. v. Hoots

For more details on this topic, see Burger King (Mattoon, Illinois).
(403 F.2d 904)
The Hoots' family Burger King restaurant located on the corner of Charleston Ave. and Fifteenth St. in Mattoon, Illinois. (September 2007)
The Hoots' family Burger King restaurant located on the corner of Charleston Ave. and Fifteenth St. in Mattoon, Illinois. (September 2007)

As the company expanded, it became engaged in several disputes in regards to trademarks. The most prominent incident of infringement in the United States occurred with the similarly named Burger King located in Mattoon, Illinois. Eugene and Elizabeth Hoots owned an ice cream shop in the city of Mattoon; due to the success of the store, in 1957 they expanded it with an additional shop located in a former garage next to the original operation. Keeping with theme related to the name of the ice cream shop, Frigid Queen, they named their burger stand Burger King and registered their trademark with the state of Illinois in 1959. In 1962 The Hootses, with knowledge of the Federal trademark held by Burger King Corporation, added a second location located in Charleston, Illinois.[25][3]

In 1961, with its first location in Skokie, Illinois, Burger King Corporation and its franchises began opening stores and by 1967 had over twenty locations spread throughout the state. The Hootses, claiming that their trademark gave them exclusive rights to the name in Illinois sued BK in the state, and later federal, courts under the case Burger King of Florida, Inc. v. Hoots 403 F.2d 904 (7th Cir. 1968). The decision issued by United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, and upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, stated that the BK federal trademark, applied for in 1961 and granted in 1963, took precedence over the Hootses' older, state trademark; The Court granted the Hootses exclusive rights to the Burger King trademark located within a circular area defined with a 20 mile (32 km) radius centered on their original location.[3][26]

The Burger King v. Hoots trademark dispute and its resulting decision went beyond the original case, it established a major legal precedent in the United States in regards to the Lanham Act.[25] The ruling states that while the senior user of the state service mark or trademark has prior usage of the common law marks, federal statute overrides the earlier, state service mark and prohibits the senior user from preventing the junior user from exercising the use of the federally registered mark outside of a defined geographic reach of the senior user.[27][28]


[edit] Controversies

[edit] Animal welfare

2001 protest by vegan proponents outside of a Burger King restaurant in San Francisco, California.
2001 protest by vegan proponents outside of a Burger King restaurant in San Francisco, California.
Parody logo created by PETA to protest Burger King policies regarding its suppliers and the humane treatment of animals.
Parody logo created by PETA to protest Burger King policies regarding its suppliers and the humane treatment of animals.

In 2001 the animal rights group PETA began targeting the various fast food chains in the United States over issues regarding the treatment of chickens by suppliers such as Tyson. Using parodies of corporate logos and slogans, the group sought to publicly embarrass the companies into changing their corporate policies in dealing with poultry suppliers. After winning concessions from McDonald's with its McCruelty campaign, the group targeted Burger King with a six-month campaign it called Murder King.[7] The group and its supporters, with the backing of celebrities including Alec Baldwin, James Cromwell, and Richard Pryor, staged protests outside Burger King restaurants across the United States calling for the company to establish new compliance guidelines for its poultry suppliers.[29] On 28 June 2001, Burger King agreed with the group and established a series of procedures to ensure that its suppliers were conforming to agreed standards of animal welfare.[29] These changes, along with the company's new vegetarian offering, the BK Veggie sandwich, drew praise from the group.[30][31]

In 2006, PETA went before Burger King Holding's board during its annual board meeting to request the company have its suppliers switch to a more humane method of slaughter called controlled atmosphere killing (CAK) in the preparation of its poultry products. Using a different tack that went beyond stating that the procedure is more humane, the group claimed that the method was economically more feasible for the company as it reduces the chances of injury to workers in poultry factories and it produced better products by preventing injury to the animal.[32] Responding to this new protest, in March 2007 Burger King announced an additional series of changes to it policies regarding animal welfare. In the policy change BK announced that it would favor suppliers of chickens that use CAK rather than electric shocks to knock birds unconscious before slaughter. The company went on to add new policies that require its pork and poultry suppliers to upgrade the living conditions of pigs and chickens; the rules require that 2% of its North American egg suppliers use cage-free produced eggs and 10% of it pork suppliers use crate free pigs for its pork products. PETA and the Humane Society of the United States were quoted as saying that Burger King’s initiatives put it ahead of its competitors in terms of animal welfare and that they were hopeful that the new initiative would trigger for reform throughout the fast food industry as a whole.[12][13]

Further information: Burger King products

[edit] Nutrition

Since the 1980s, several parties, including the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), the City of New York,[33] and the Spanish government,[9] have argued that Burger King has contributed to issues of obesity and unhealthy eating behaviors in Western nations by producing products that contain large amounts of salt, fat, trans-fat and calories.[34] Since its purchase in 2002, the company has introduced several large, over-sized products including its European BK XXL line,[9] Enormous Omelet Sandwich line and the BK Stacker line.[35][36] These new offerings, and others like them, have brought further international scorn and negative attention due the large portion size and amounts of unhealthy fats and trans-fats. Many of these groups have accused Burger King and other fast food restaurant chains of failing to provide healthier alternatives.[37]

A 1985 agreement with the New York city public health commissioner's office over publication of nutritional data in regards to the food it sells helped define guidelines used by the city in the publication of nutritional information. In a five month negotiation with Burger King and its then parent Grand Metropolitan, PLC, the company agreed to post a complete set of nutritional information that complied with the Federal Government's guidelines maximum daily recommended intake of fat and sodium. Additionally the data would be presented in a format the was easier the general public to understand and utilize. On the basis of this agreement, New York public health commissioner Mark Green, with support of Mayor David Dinkins, introduced legislation that would require all fast food restaurants to display nutritional data as well.[33]

In response to the 2006 introduction of the BK XXL product line in Spain, the Health Ministry of the country made a public claim that the company had violated an agreement between itself and the Spanish Federation of Hoteliers and Restaurateurs, a group in which Burger King is a member. The agreement called on members of the federation to refrain from advertising larger portions of food, and the Minister of Health, Elena Salgado, claimed that the new promotion and the new sandwiches, averaging over 970 calories each, violated the accord.[9][38] Furthermore, head of Spain's food regulatory body Felix Lobo stated a legal case could be made against Burger King for "illegally failing to comply with a contract". In a response to the Governments allegations, the European offices of Burger King released this statement: "In this campaign, we are simply promoting a line of burgers that has formed part of our menu in recent years. Our philosophy can be summed up with the motto 'As you like it,' in which our customers' taste trumps all."[9]

The company's statement went on to explain that it had always worked "to reduce the risk of illness provoked by an inadequate diet and to promote a balanced ... diet". A spokesperson for the company also stated that customers have the choice of salads versus a Whopper and that they have the option to modify the their sandwiches as they please, and that the company was going to continue to advertising the products.[9][38]

In May 2007 the CSPI sought a state level class action lawsuit against Burger King in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia over its concerns of the inclusion of trans-fats in foods served by Burger King and its failure to set a definitive time line for the elimination of them from the company's menu.[8][39] The CSPI suit sought to require the company to place large heath warnings on the Burger King's food packaging explaining the dangers presented by trans-fat and the levels contained in the products. Burger King sought to move the case to the Federal courts and have the suit dismissed. While the Federal Courts agreed to hear the case, it denied the company's motion for dismissal, allowed the case to proceed, and sent the case back to Superior Court to face trial.[40] To address the CSPI's legal challenge, as well as several laws passed in New York City, Philadelphia and other cities regarding the issue of trans-fats in its food, BK announced a plan in July 2007 to phase out all trans-fats from its products by the end of 2008.[41][42]

In response to the issue of childhood obesity, Burger King announced in October 2007 that it was joining The Council of Better Business Bureaus Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. The program is a voluntary self-regulation program designed to shift advertising messages aimed at children so that they encourage healthier eating habits and lifestyles.[43] As part of its participation in the program, Burger King announced a series of steps relating to its advertising and children's product lines it was committing itself to:

“ ...In addition, Burger King Corp. will:
  • Restrict advertising to children under 12 that uses third-party licensed characters to Kids Meals that meet its Nutrition Guidelines
  • Refrain from advertising in elementary schools and from product placement in media primarily aimed at children under 12
  • Promote Kids Meals that meet its Nutrition Guidelines on its Web site
  • Promote healthy lifestyles and healthy dietary choices in advertising[44][45]
 ”

The modified Kid's Meal line will include several new products including broiled Chicken Tenders; apple "fries", French cut, raw apples served in a fry box; and organic apple sauce.[46][47] According to the statement by the company's corporate parent Burger King Brands, the meals will contain no more than 560 calories per meal, less than 30 percent of calories derived from fat, less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fat, no added trans fats and no more than 10% of calories from added sugars.[44][45] As of June 1 2008, Burger King has yet to introduce the product line in the United states, but has introduced the broiled Chicken Tenders product in the United Kingdom and Ireland.[48][49][50][51]

[edit] Labor

A protracted South Florida labor dispute between the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) and growers of tomatoes in the region expanded to include Burger King and other major fast food companies, including McDonald's and Yum! Brands. In 2001, the CIW sought a pay raise for tomato pickers in the region and, starting with its Boot the Bell campaign aimed at Yum! subsidiary Taco Bell, began to target the chains with protests, letter writing campaigns, and petitions demanding that the companies purchase tomatoes only from suppliers who agree to the pay increase.[52][53][54] The campaign, which eventually attracted the support of religious groups, labor organizations, student groups and anti-slavery activists, became known as the Campaign for Fair Food with a stated goal to increase the wages of the pickers by 1¢ per pound picked above the 45¢ paid per bucket at the time, or about 77¢ for each 32 pound (14.5 kg) bucket in 2005 dollars.[55][56][57] In 2005, McDonald's Corporation and Yum! signed agreements acquiescing to the group's purchasing demands, although implementation was put on hold due to threats by the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange to fine its members $100,000 if they complied; however, Burger King corporate parent Burger King Brands declined to enter into a similar agreement with the group.[58]

A December 2007 QSR Magazine article about the conflict claimed that Burger King Brands had devised a contingency plan to remove itself from the dispute. Citing internal company documents, the Associated Press stated BK had concerns that such agreements might prove to be a possible violation of anti-trust laws, had possible tax implications, and that there were issues with third-party oversight for the agreements. As part of the company's plan, QSR Magazine claimed that the company was going to cease purchasing product from suppliers with whom the CIW was in disagreement.[58] In response, the company issued a press release in February 2007 claiming that while it is a large purchaser, it is not responsible for the pay rates of it suppliers' workers as wage disputes are the province of the producer. BK also pointed out that it has an open offer of employment for any dissatisfied CIW members and scholarships (through its Have it Your Way Foundation) for family members of CIW workers.[59]

In the release, Steven Grover, BK Vice President of Global Food Safety, Quality Assurance, and Regulatory Compliance, confirmed the factuality of the QSR report and that if the dispute between the growers and the CIW continues, the company would go forward with its plans to stop purchasing tomatoes from farms in the Immokalee region.[58] The company stated it would purchase only 1% of its tomatoes from that area and other suppliers could easily make up the difference. Speaking on the dispute, Grover stated, "We’re being asked to do something that we have legal questions about. We want to find a way to make sure that workers are protected and receive a decent wage."[60] CIW spokesperson Julia Perkins faulted this move, stating, "... farm workers across the country and world face the same problems as those in the Immokalee region, but many do not have a human rights organization, such as the CIW, to stand up for their interests. Running away from the scene of the crime, does that make you any more innocent? Are they really willing to pay an exorbitantly higher transportation cost[s] to bring in tomatoes from overseas or Mexico and pass that on to their customers rather than pay a penny more per pound?"[58]

In an April 2008 Senate hearing chaired by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) regarding farm conditions, Eric Schlosser, author of the best-selling Fast Food Nation, commented on Burger King's recalcitrance to sign an agreement with the CIW while Yum! and McDonald's had. Schlosser stated, "The admirable behavior of these two industry giants makes the behavior or Burger King ... seem completely unjustifiable."[2]

In May 2008 several issues came to the fore that damaged the credibility of Burger King and its position on the topic. Steven Grover was found to be trolling websites that have posted pro-CIW positions and opinions. Under an assumed screen name, Grover posted several comments disparaging the ethics and honesty of the leadership of the group.[61] Besides the trolling incident, several terse, stridently worded e-mails were sent from a possibly fictitious employee at the BK global headquarters in Miami to supporters and media groups;[62] the company labeled these communications as unsanctioned and not reflecting official corporate positions.[2] Additionally, Burger King was found to have hired an outside security company, Pembroke Pines, Florida based Diplomatic Tactical Services, to infiltrate the CIW and its supporting groups and spy on their members.[61][63] After an investigation into the various allegations, BK terminated Grover and company spokesman Keva Silversmith for their actions. Burger King also terminated its relationship with Diplomatic Tactical Services at approximately the same time as the employee terminations. Critics of the action, such as PR Watch editor Sheldon Rampton, noted that it appeared that the two terminated employees were being made scapegoats by the company. Rampton went on to note that Silversmith had been, up to a few weeks before the story came to light, employed by the PR firm Edelman, which had been contracted by company parent Burger King Brands to provide PR services; Edelman has employed tactics on the behalf of its other clients, Wal-Mart and Microsoft, which Rampton and his organization termed "sleazy".[61][62] Sen. Sanders agreed with Rampton's claim of scapegoating, and called for hearings into the incidents to investigate the company's behaviors to see if other Burger King officers had instigated the attacks on the labor group as company policy. Sanders stated that he wished to "make sure that we find out how high up the corporate ladder this scheme went."[61]

The issue was resolved on May 23, 2008 when BK CEO John Chidsey announced an agreement with the CIW granting the requested 1¢ pay increase to the workers. Chidsey also apologized on behalf of the company for the comments made about the pickers and the behavior of Grover and Silversmith. Additionally, the company agreed to provide a ½¢ per pound payment to the CIW to cover payroll taxes and administrative costs for the tomato growers.[64]

[edit] Islam

See also: Arab-Israeli conflict and List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel

Another issue that arose with the Islamic community was over an Israeli franchise opening stores in the Israeli-occupied territories. When the Israeli Burger King franchisee Rikamor, Ltd. opened a store in the West Bank settlement of Ma'aleh Adumim in August 1999, Islamic groups, including the Arab League, argued that international Burger King parent Burger King Corporation's licensing of the store helped legitimize the disputed settlement.[65] Burger King Corporation quickly pulled the franchise license for that location and had the store shuttered explaining that Rikamor, Ltd. had violated its contract by opening the location in the West Bank.[66] Several American-based Jewish groups issued statements that denounced the decision as acceding to threats of boycotts by Islamic groups. Burger King Corporation issued a statement that it "made this decision purely on a commercial basis and in the best interests of thousands of people who depend on the Burger King reputation for their livelihood."[11][67]

An issue of a religious nature arose in 2005 in the United Kingdom when Burger King introduced a new prepackaged ice cream product; the label of the product included a silhouette of the ice cream that when rotated on its side bore a resemblance to the Islamic inscription for God, Allah (الله). When a British Muslim named Rashad Akhtar, a resident of the community of High Wycombe, was presented with the ice cream cone in a Park Royal Burger King restaurant, he noticed the resemblance and became angered at what he felt was an offense to the Islamic faith.[68] After being informed of the likeness, the local Islamic group Muslim Council of Britain pointed out the issue of the possible interpretation to Burger King; the company voluntarily recalled the product and reissued a version with a new label.[10] The Muslim Council praised the company for its "sensitive and prompt action" in resolving the matter,[69] however Akhtar was not satisfied with the company's withdrawal of the product.[68]

In response to the perceived blasphemy, Akhtar declared it was his personal jihad to find those responsible for the packaging in order to destroy their professional status, personal life and the UK as a whole for having a culture allowing the insult to occur.[68] This event, Akhtar's reaction and other similar issues with companies such as Nike and Unilever have been used by conservative political critics, such as James Joyner, claiming that western nations and organizations are kowtowing too easily to Muslims' claims or threats and by commentators, including author Daniel C. Dennett, highlighting how factions of the Islamic faith gravitate towards iconoclasm.[70][71][72]

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b c d Matthew Saucedo. Burger King Holdings, Inc.. Hoovers. Retrieved on 2007-09-26.
  2. ^ a b c Amy Bennett Williams (2008-04-28). Burger King gets farm workers petition; Daughter of Burger King VP says dad wrote anti-coalition postings. the Fort Meyers News-Press. Retrieved on 2008-04-28. “At Senate hearings on farm conditions held by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., earlier this month, Eric Schlosser, author of the best-selling "Fast Food Nation," praised Yum! and McDonald's for working with the coalition and urged Burger King to do the same. "The admirable behavior of these two industry giants makes the behavior of Burger King ... seem completely unjustifiable."”
  3. ^ a b c John Jermaine (2003-11-20). The burger king and queen of Mattoon. the Illinois Times. Retrieved on 2007-09-26.
  4. ^ Restaurant Business News (2003-05-30). Burger King Re-flags Australian Stores. AllBusiness.com. Retrieved on 2007-09-29. “Hungry Jack's was BK's original franchisee in Australia, but the company could not use the Burger King name at the time because it was already trademarked.”
  5. ^ a b c 471 U.S. 462. Findlaw (1985-05-20). Retrieved on 2008-03-04.
  6. ^ a b c d Christopher D. Peloso (2007-05-19). Burger King v. Rudzewicz. Retrieved on 2008-03-04.
  7. ^ a b Gale Group (2008-02-11). PETA Praises Safeway for Adopting New Industry-Leading Animal Welfare Policies. Business Wire. Retrieved on 2008-03-09. “June 2001: Following PETA's six-month "Murder King" campaign, Burger King agrees to adopt standards that are in some areas better than those adopted by McDonald's.”
  8. ^ a b AP Wire (2007-05-17). Burger King responds to trans-fat cooking oil suit. CTV. Retrieved on 2007-09-28.
  9. ^ a b c d e f AP Wire (2006-11-16). Spain Nixes Burger King Ad. CBS News. Retrieved on 2007-09-26.
  10. ^ a b John Innes (2005-09-07). Burger King recalls 'sacrilegious' desserts. Scotsman.com. Retrieved on 2008-05-10.
  11. ^ a b Julia Goldman (1999-09-01). Dumping West Bank store puts Burger King in a pickle. The Jewish News Weekly. Retrieved on 2007-10-01.
  12. ^ a b Andrew Martin (2007-03-28). Burger King Shifts Policy on Animals. the New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-03-09. “In what animal welfare advocates are describing as a "historic advance", Burger King, the world’s second-largest hamburger chain, said yesterday that it would begin buying eggs and pork from suppliers that did not confine their animals in cages and crates.”
  13. ^ a b AP Wire. "Burger King Offers Cage-Free Food.", Fox News, 2007-03-28. Retrieved on 2007-08-21. ""Suppliers will hopefully respond by producing more of these types of products," [PETA spokesman Matt] Prescott said." 
  14. ^ Alina Matas (1999-11-11). Burger King Hit With Whopper ($44.6 Million) Of A Judgment. Zargo Einhorn Salkowski & Brito. P.A.. Retrieved on 2007-09-29.
  15. ^ a b In Australia, Burger King to become 'Hungry Jack's'. South Florida Business Journal, (2003-05-30). Retrieved on 2007-09-29.
  16. ^ BK press release (1998-11-06). Burger King Corporation Announces The Opening Of The Company's 10,000th Restaurant. PR Newswire. Retrieved on 2008-03-08. “Burger King Corporation announced today that it is opening its 10,000th restaurant in Australia on Saturday, November 7, a major milestone in the fast-food giant's development plans.”
  17. ^ a b c Rani Mina (Corrs Chambers Westgarth) (March 2002). A Franchiser’s Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Findlaw (Australia). Retrieved on 2008-06-01. “In contrast, it was necessary to imply this duty good faith in the Burger King case to give business efficacy to the agreement because the agreement gave Burger King a discretionary power to terminate the agreement on the basis of operational and financial grounds that involved subjective considerations. Burger King could terminate the agreement for the slightest breach based on a subjective evaluation of the circumstances if it were not obliged to act in good faith.”<ref></ref>
  18. ^ [2001] NSWCA 187
  19. ^ Importing into Australian law the US notion of good faith in contract-related dealings. Allens Arthur Robinson (June 2008). Retrieved on 2008-05-24. “Now, it seems that the Courts are using these concepts in commercial disputes in New South Wales. An unreported judgment late last year in Hungry Jack's v Burger King indicates that the notion of good faith may well be implied between the parties in some contractual disputes.”
  20. ^ [2001] HCATrans S157/1
  21. ^ Leiann Comben (December 2001). Franchisors and good faith. Findlaw.com (Australia). Retrieved on 2008-06-02. “The Court found that Burger King's conduct, including its conduct in purporting to terminate the agreement, breached its obligation of good faith and reasonableness because its actions were neither reasonable nor for a legitimate purpose. Instead, the actions were taken:”
  22. ^ The Gale Group (2003-06-09). Hungry Jack's to replace BK brand in Australia. Nations Restaurant News. Retrieved on 2008-03-08. “"Consolidation means more money for marketing and will create a powerful, single brand with an increased focus on operations excellence that should add to growth in profitability", Brad Blum, chief executive of Miami-based Burger King, said.”
  23. ^ AP Wire (2003-09-13). Burger King slips into Hungry Jacks uniform. the Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved on 2008-03-08. “Burger King Corp's new management said on Friday it was ceding the Australian market to the Hungry Jack's brand, dissolving a convoluted relationship that at one time went to court in a franchising dispute.”
  24. ^ Steven G. Yeazell (2005-05-21). Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: With Selected Statutes. Aspen Publishers, pp. 137-144. ISBN 0735551529. 
  25. ^ a b United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: by Kiley, Circuit Judge (1968-11-25). Burger King of Florida, Inc. v. Hoots, 403 F.2d 904; 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 4765; 159 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 706. Retrieved on 2007-10-14.
  26. ^ The court cited numerous examples where the federal law explicitly gave federal trademarks stronger weight than other kinds. See, for example, 15 U.S.C. § 1127: "The intent of this chapter is ... to protect registered marks used in such commerce from interference by State, or territorial legislation."
  27. ^ Sheldon W. Halpern; Craig Allen Nard (2006). Fundamentals of United States Intellectual Property Law: Copyright, Patent and Trademark, Kenneth L. Port, Kluwer Law International, p. 354, text and footnote 326. ISBN 904112599X. “Because of the nature of Commerce in the United States has changed so dramatically in the last 50 years with changes in transportation, communication and marketing, state boundaries are becoming less and less relevant in determining the geographical scope of unregistered trademarks” 
  28. ^ Kenneth L. Port (2004). Trademark Law and Policy. Carolina Academic Press, pp. 184-187. ISBN 1594600198. 
  29. ^ a b PETA press release (2001-06-29). Victory: PETA Wins 'Murder King' Campaign!. PETA. Retrieved on 2008-06-03. “On June 28, 2001, PETA called off its "Murder King" campaign, which involved provocative ads; celebrity support from Alec Baldwin, James Cromwell, and Richard Pryor; and—with the help of activists—more than 800 protests at Burger King restaurants worldwide.”
  30. ^ PETA press release (2001-06-28). Burger King Complies With Demand for Improved Animal Welfare Standards.. Femail.com.au. Retrieved on 2008-03-09. “The only way to avoid cruelty in meat production is to go vegetarian, but today Burger King has taken giant steps to improve the lives of millions of animals”
  31. ^ PETA helps BK roll out vegetable-based burger. Nation's Restaurant News (2002-03-05). Retrieved on 2008-03-09. “Aided by former challenger PETA, the radical animal-rights group, Burger King Corp. began a national roll out of the new BK Veggie burger and new reduced-fat mayonnaise.”
  32. ^ PETA to criticize Burger King poultry choices. South Florida Business Journal (2006-11-28). Retrieved on 2008-03-09. “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said it will use its position as a Burger King Holdings stockholder at Wednesday's shareholder's meeting to show its position on the fast-food company's poultry practices.”
  33. ^ a b Trish Hall (1991-08-08). How Fat? Burger King to Post Answers. the New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-05-30. “Executives of Burger King, based in Miami and owned by Grand Metropolitan P.L.C. of London, announced the plan yesterday after five months of discussion with New York [City]'s Consumer Affairs Commissioner, Mark Green.”
  34. ^ Ethan Wilensky-Lanford (2007-08-03). Some Restaurant Chains Still Serve Too Much Trans Fat, Group Says. the New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-05-26. “Burger King French fries also have a high trans fat content, according to a study the group [CSPI] released yesterday, but McDonald's fries were found to have far less.”
  35. ^ Herb Weisbaum (2006-07-06). Burger King Launches Line Of Jumbo High-Rise Burgers. KOMO Radio (Seattle, WA). Retrieved on 2007-10-24.
  36. ^ Bruce Horovitz (2005-05-03). Burger King to offer whopper of a breakfast sandwich. USA TODAY. Retrieved on 2007-10-24.
  37. ^ Melanie Warner (2006-07-28). U.S. Restaurant Chains Find There Is No Too Much. The New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-05-27. “The restaurants, hoping to appeal to consumers looking for what the industry calls “indulgent” offerings, are promoting the consumption of copious amounts of food. And nutritionists are calling these offerings anything but healthy.”
  38. ^ a b Giles Tremlett (2006-12-06). Spain tries to remove burger ads. the Guardian. Retrieved on 2008-05-31. “Spain's government was yesterday trying to stop the global fast-food chain Burger King advertising its biggest burgers on television as the health minister, Elena Salgado, warned of a growing obesity problem.”
  39. ^ Angela Moore (2007-07-06). Burger King rolls out oil without trans fat. MarketWatch.com. Retrieved on 2005-05-30. “Burger King was hit with a lawsuit recently, filed by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, which complained that the restaurant chain was lagging in the industry in ridding its menu of foods cooked in oil containing trans fat.”
  40. ^ CSPI press relese (2008-02-09). Court Rebuffs Burger King in Trans Fat Case. Center for Science in the Public Interest. Retrieved on 2008-05-30.
  41. ^ Sewell Chan (2007-08-07). Want Some Trans Fats With Those Fries?. the New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-05-30. “Burger King said in a news release this month that it had "begun the rollout of a trans-fat-free cooking oil to its restaurants in the United States."”
  42. ^ Adrian Sainz, the Associated Press (2007-07-06). Burger King to shift to trans-fat-free oil. MSNBC. Retrieved on 2008-05-30. “Burger King said Friday it will use trans-fat-free cooking oil at all its U.S. restaurants by the end of next year [2008]...”
  43. ^ Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. The Council of Better Business Bureaus. Retrieved on 2007-10-04.
  44. ^ a b Reuters (2007-09-12). Burger King to limit ads aimed at children under 12. Reuters. Retrieved on 2007-10-04.
  45. ^ a b BK press release (2007-09-12). Burger King Corporation joins the Council of Better Business Bureaus' Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. Burger King Holdings. Retrieved on 2007-10-04.
  46. ^ Bruce Horovitz (2007-09-21). Burger King has a new twist on fries: Fresh Apples.. USA Today. Retrieved on 2007-09-21.
  47. ^ Adrian Sainz (2007-09-12). Burger King to sell broiled chicken in healthier kid menu. USA TODAY. Retrieved on 2007-09-12.
  48. ^ BKB publication (January 2008). Burger King US Nutritional Brochure (PDF). Burger King Holdings. Retrieved on 2004-10-27.
  49. ^ BKB Publication. Burger King US Menu. Burger King Holdings. Retrieved on 2008-06-01.
  50. ^ BKC publication (May 2008). Burger King UK Nutritional Brochure (PDF). Burger King Holdings. Retrieved on 2004-10-27.
  51. ^ BKC publication. Burger King UK/Ireland Menu. Burger King Holdings. Retrieved on 2008-06-01.
  52. ^ CIW publication. Abut the CIW. Coalition of Immokalee Workers. Retrieved on 2008-06-04. “In 2001, we turned a new page in our organizing, launching the first-ever farmworker boycott of a major fast-food company -- the national boycott of Taco Bell...”
  53. ^ Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) press release (2005-03-12). Coalition of Immokalee Workers and Yum Brands Reach Historic Agreement for Human Rights. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Retrieved on 2008-06-08. “In the ensuing years thousands of Presbyterians across the country upheld the boycott and wrote letters, prayed, protested and supported the CIW and its work.”
  54. ^ Eighth Day Center for Justice. Farmworkers Focus on McDonald's (letter writing campaign, 2005). Eighth Day Center for Justice. Retrieved on 2008-06-07. “Contact McDonald's now, or at your earliest convenience and demand that they, too, pay a fair price for their tomatoes and that they work with the CIW to end human rights violations in the fields.", "Print out the sample letter below, or write your own, and mail or fax it to McDonald's Corporation..."”
  55. ^ Michael Gould-Wartofsky (2007-12-14). Farmworkers and Students Take On Burger King. the Nation. Retrieved on 2008-06-04. “Hundreds of students, workers, clergy and allied activists marched with them, as they have since the birth of the Campaign for Fair Food in 2001...”
  56. ^ Robyn E. Blumner (2008-04-24). It's just a penny a pound, people. the St. Petersburg Times, Reprinted by Sen. Bernie Sanders. Retrieved on 2008-06-04. “Burger King Corp. has refused to join with other fast food giants to pay workers an additional penny per pound of tomatoes.”
  57. ^ Reuters (2007-03-12). Tomato Pickers Protest at Burger King Miami HQ. Reuters. Retrieved on 2008-06-04. “At the time of the McDonald's deal, the CIW said the extra penny would raise pickers' wages to 77 cents for each 32-pound (14.5 kg) bucket of tomatoes they picked, effectively a 71 percent wage hike.”
  58. ^ a b c d Jamie Hartford (February 2008). Tomato Troubles. QSR Magazine. Retrieved on 2008-03-28. “We are working diligently to find a legal way to comply with this scheme.”
  59. ^ BK press release (2007-02-05). Burger King Corporation Issues "Penny per Pound" Statement. Burger King Holdings. Retrieved on 2007-10-04.
  60. ^ Steven Greenhouse (2007-12-24). Tomato Pickers’ Wages Fight Faces Obstacles. the New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-03-28.
  61. ^ a b c d Elaine Walker (2008-05-18). Burger King's virtual missteps `a cautionary tale'. the Miami Herald. Retrieved on 2008-05-24. “The fast-food chain fired Grover and company spokesman Keva Silversmith last week for violating the company's Code of Business Ethics and Conduct.”
  62. ^ a b Amy Bennett Williams (2008-04-12). Tomato pickers feeling spied on. the Fort Meyers News-Press. Retrieved on 2008-06-09. “In recent months, they’ve [the CIW and supporter Student/Farmworker Alliance] been vilified online and in e-mails that can be traced to the Miami headquarters of Burger King, a company that’s opposed the groups’ efforts.”
  63. ^ Eric Schlosser (2008-05-07). Burger With a Side of Spies. the New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-06-09. “And now it turns out that the Burger King Corporation, home of the Whopper, hired a private security firm to spy on the Student/Farmworker Alliance...”
  64. ^ Andrew Martin (2008-05-24). Burger King Grants Raise to Pickers. the New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-05-24. “At a news conference on Capitol Hill, the hamburger chain, based in Miami, said it would pay tomato prices adequate to give workers a wage increase of 1.5 cents a pound.”
  65. ^ BBC News (1999-08-10). Middle East protest grows against burger giant. BBC. Retrieved on 2008-06-04. “The Arab League is to consider backing a campaign to force the closure of a fast-food outlet in a West Bank Jewish settlement built on land seized during the 1967 war.”
  66. ^ Deborah Sontag (1999-08-30). Burger King Outlet in West Bank Becomes a Political Dispute. the New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-06-04. “Now, after Burger King's decision on Thursday to cancel its franchise contract for the shop in Maale Adumim, Jewish groups are accusing the company of capitulating to Arab pressure.”
  67. ^ Israel Faxx news report (1999-08-30). Jews Plan to Boycott Burger King.. Israel Faxx. Retrieved on 2008-06-04. “The Zionist Organization of America is considering calling for a worldwide Jewish boycott against Burger King, to protest its surrender to Arab threats and the closure of its branch in Ma'aleh Adumim.”
  68. ^ a b c Davina Patel (March 2006). I'm hatin' it. Harpers, excerpted from Eastern Eye. Retrieved on 2008-06-04. “From a September interview with Rashad Akhtar, a twenty-seven-year-old British Muslim, who alleges that the graphic used on the lid of Burger King ice-cream cones resembles the Arabic spelling of “Allah.””
  69. ^ NewsMax staff (2005-09-15). 'Jihad' Threat Forces Burger King to Change Ice Cream Logo. NewsMax. Retrieved on 2008-06-04. “It [the Scotsman] quoted a Muslim Council of Britain spokesman as commending the company for "sensitive and prompt action."”
  70. ^ Mark Steyn (2005-04-10). Making a pig's ear of defending democracy. the Telegraph. Retrieved on 2006-06-04. “After all, how daffy does a Muslim's willingness to take offence have to be to get rejected out of court? Only the other day, Burger King withdrew its ice-cream cones from its British restaurants because Mr Rashad Akhtar of High Wycombe, after a trip to the Park Royal branch, complained that the creamy swirl on the lid resembled the word "Allah" in Arabic script.”
  71. ^ Edward Rothestien (2006-02-20). History Illuminates the Rage of Muslims. the New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-06-04. “Today's Iconoclasts want to oppose all attempts to display forbidden images, whatever their provenance. And for a variety of reasons, many in the West readily defer. Last fall, for example, Burger King withdrew its ice cream from restaurants in Britain after receiving complaints from Muslims that the swirling illustration on the package resembled the name of Allah.”
  72. ^ James Joyner (2005-09-18). Burger King Stops Selling Anti-Muslim Ice Cream. Outside the Beltway. Retrieved on 2008-06-04. “Burger King has stopped selling ice cream cones after a single idiot Muslim was offended by the shape of the swirl on the lid.”

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

Cases citing Rudzewicz