What Intellectual Property Protection Is Necessary for Ghost Kitchens?
As a new form of enterprise, ghost kitchens require thought and novel strategies in developing associated intellectual property protection, rather than canned strategies previously employed for analogs such as conventional restaurants, says Dan Venglarik, a partner in the technology/intellectual property law group at Munck Wilson Mandala.
March 26, 2020 at 07:59 PM
4 minute read
Emerging technologies spawn new opportunities, but also require new thinking in ancillary fields such as law. The growth in food delivery apps such as DoorDash, Grubhub and Postmates paved the way for so-called "ghost kitchens," which in turn have necessitated new thinking about the legal needs for such enterprises.
Ghost kitchens are retail food service enterprises with no meaningful brick-and-mortar service space, as opposed to food preparation space. Conventional restaurants exploit food delivery to augment existing dine-in, to-go, and/or curbside pickup food service at brick-and-mortar locations. Pop-up restaurants simply repurpose existing retail locations for a conventional—if temporary—restaurant. By contrast, a ghost kitchen is centered on food delivery, leveraging food delivery apps and commercial kitchen space in a model resembling Amazon Stores for meals. While avoiding front-of-house headaches such as wait staff and décor, ghost kitchens face overlapping but differently weighted challenges from conventional restauranteurs—including in the area of legal protection.
Branding, Branding, Branding
A branding plan with appropriate trademark and copyright protections can be critical both to successful launch of a ghost kitchen and to enduring revenue streams afterward. Akin to the aphorism about real estate price, value for ghost kitchens derives in large measure from branding, branding, branding. The same is true for conventional restaurants, but to a different degree: where conventional restaurants can benefit from walk-ins, alcohol sales, ambiance and social gathering, ghost kitchens have no analogous opportunities apart from food quality and branding. Customers have no dine-in experience to trigger cravings for a specific dish emotionally linked to a past memorable visit. Instead, ghost kitchens must rely on word of mouth and/or food genre (street tacos, pad thai, etc.) as the sole proxies for prior experience.
Branding for ghost kitchens necessarily focuses on distinctiveness and appeal. While memorable names and logos are foundational requirements for virtually every retail enterprise, appealing and evocative product descriptions are also vitally important to food service. Along similar lines, successful restaurant menu designs use professional food photography to promote sales. Since the customer-facing aspects of a ghost kitchen are almost entirely its food listings on a delivery app or website, trademark and copyright protection for such brand aspects must be designed for proactive but cost-effective enforcement. For example, detecting and addressing a competitor's use of proprietary food images and/or descriptions must be prompt but pragmatic.
Preparing a branding plan for a ghost kitchen rather than a traditional restaurant also involves novel considerations—or at least a novel level of importance for such considerations. Given the role of food delivery apps within the business model, familiarity with the respective intellectual property policies is a higher priority imperative for ghost kitchens. For example, whether a food delivery app developer will block reported trademark and copyright infringement by others using the app is a significant concern.
Noncompete and Trade Secrets
Employment noncompete provisions and trade secret protection also have heightened importance for ghost kitchens. Barriers to entry are significantly lower than for conventional restaurants, making employee knowledge of recipes and suppliers more likely to result in competition from former employees. Fortunately, ghost kitchens have characteristics allowing noncompete clauses to be crafted to overcome longstanding judicial reluctance to enforce such provisions. Similarly, the effective trade secret practices that often receive short shrift at conventional restaurants are easier to follow and with better return with the lower number of employees at ghost kitchens.
Nontraditional Intellectual Property
Current technology has given rise to nontraditional forms of "intellectual property," such as rights associated with search engines and search engine optimization. No enterprise wants competitors to be able to purchase "sponsored" search results on keywords including the enterprise's name, product name, or trademarks, even if listed together with the enterprise. Rights of this nature are most frequently based on unfair competition or on contract. Once a ghost kitchen establishes a reputation, the search function of a food delivery app may be a major sales driver.
As a new form of enterprise, ghost kitchens require thought and novel strategies in developing associated intellectual property protection, rather than canned strategies previously employed for analogs such as conventional restaurants.
Dan Venglarik is a partner in the technology/intellectual property law group at Munck Wilson Mandala. Venglarik represents clients in the enforcement and defense of intellectual property claims. He can be reached at [email protected] or 972-628-3621.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'GoodPop, Bad Pop': Hueston Hennigan Files Suit Against Freezer Pop-Maker Alleging False Advertising
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250