Google Goes After Online Food Ordering Company With Claims It Misled Restaurant Owners
The search giant accuses Kydia Inc., the company behind the BeyondMenu app and website, of tricking business owners into thinking it was affiliated with Google. It claims Kydia direct consumers to an online food-ordering platform that generated commissions.
May 23, 2018 at 04:55 PM
3 minute read
Google has sued the company behind the online food ordering service BeyondMenu, claiming that it has misled restaurant owners into thinking it's associated with the search giant.
In a complaint filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by lawyers at Cooley, Google accuses Kydia Inc. of misleading business owners to get control of their restaurants' “Google My Business” listings to direct consumers to the BeyondMenu ordering platform.
A BeyondMenu representative reached by phone Wednesday directed a request for comment to the email address listed on the company's website. Officials at Rosemont, Illinois-based Kydia didn't immediately respond to an email message.
According to Kydia's website, it takes a 5 percent commission from orders placed through the BeyondMenu platform. Google claims that BeyondMenu representatives have purported to be affiliated with or endorsed by Google when reaching out to restaurants to market their platform. Google claims that BeyondMenu has taken advantage of the “Google My Bussiness,” or GMB, platform to direct orders through its platform to generate commission.
According to Google, BeyondMenu has collected information from restaurants who don't yet have a GMB account to pass Google's verification process. For restaurants that already have accounts, Google claims that BeyondMenu has convinced restaurant employees or owners to hand over Google-assigned PIN numbers to take over access and direct the restaurant's business listings to BeyondMenu-built sites to generate orders.
“Indeed, several restaurants have complained that BeyondMenu creates these autogenerated websites without the restaurant's authorization, and that the websites are of poor quality, display incorrect information, and divert consumers from the restaurant's real website,” wrote Google's lawyers at Cooley. “Restaurant owners or employees disclose information to defendant because they are led to mistakenly believe that they are communicating with Google, or with an entity that represents or is affiliated or associated with Google, the GMB service, or other Google services.”
Google is pursuing claims of trademark infringement, federal unfair competition and false designation of origin, and breach of contract based on BeyondMenu's alleged violation of GMB's terms of service. The suit seeks an injunction barring BeyondMenu from claiming any association with Google or using its trademarks. The suit also seeks a finding that BeyondMenu's infringement of Google trademarks was “deliberate, willful, fraudulent, and without extenuating circumstances.” Such a finding could entitle Google to three times the damages and attorney fees and costs associated with the lawsuit.
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
© 2024 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'Water Cooler Discussions': US Judge Questions DOJ Request in Google Search Case
3 minute readJudge to Hear Arguments on Whether Google's Advertising Tech Constitutes a Monopoly
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Hershey's 'Bubble Yum' Hit With Consumer Class Action for Allegedly Containing 'Forever Chemicals'
Trending Stories
- 1Glynn County Judge Rejects Ex-DA's Motion to Halt Her Misconduct Trial in Ahmaud Arbery Investigation
- 2Pa 100: Largest Law Firms
- 3Whistleblowers Are Here To Stay: Counseling Corporate Clients on Whistleblower Programs
- 4Intentionally Caused Motor Vehicle Accidents In the Video Spotlight
- 5Scrap the State's Taxpayer Funding of Elections
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