UNBIASED - Week in Review: March 31-April 6, 2023

Episode Date: April 7, 2023

1. Former VP, Mike Pence, Decides He Will Not Appeal Judge's Ruling Requiring Him to Testify in Front of Grand Jury (3:05)2. First Grade Teacher Sues School Officials for $40 Million After Being Shot By Student (6:43)3. Tennessee House of Representatives Votes to Expel Justin Jones Following Gun Control Protest on House Floor (17:55) *Update: following the recording of this episode, Rep. Justin Pearson was also expelled. Rep. Gloria Johnson was able to remain in the House.4. Chipotle Sues Sweetgreen for Trademark Infringement Following Sweetgreen's Launch of a New Menu Item (26:00)Follow Jordan on Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, and YouTube.Click here for episodes sources. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. You are listening to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. Happy Friday. I have four stories for you today.

The first is in regards to Mike Pence making the decision that he won't be appealing that federal court ruling in which he was ordered to testify for the grand jury. So that'll be the first story. The second story is about a Virginia school teacher suing school officials in the school district. This story got a lot of traction on my Instagram, my TikTok. So I figured I would elaborate on it a little bit on here. The third story is what's going on with the Tennessee legislature, basically the House Republicans wanting to oust the Democrats and what they decided on that. And then the fourth story, I shared this to my Instagram story as well,

letting you guys know I was going to be talking about this, is the lawsuit that Chipotle filed against Sweetgreen. So we're going to get into that. And then I am going to be releasing an episode likely on Monday, possibly over the weekend about Trump's indictment and his arraignment. So there's a lot to talk about. You know, I want to talk about what happened in the courtroom, the timeline for the case, when the judge set the next hearing for what's supposed to happen between now and then the indictment itself, the statement of facts that accompanied that indictment, the statute of limitations issue that everyone's talking about. And then I also want to talk about why some people

say that the case is a strong one and then others say that the case is weak. So I want to go over all of that. And I just figured if I did it in this episode with the other four stories, it would have taken a very long time. And I know, you know, we're all about efficiency here. And then also, interestingly enough, this kind of went under the radar. There was a judgment against Stormy Daniels to pay Donald Trump's legal fees. And I want to talk about that, too, because with all of this talk about, you know, the indictment and Stormy Daniels, no one really heard about that. So I'm going to throw that in there as well as just kind of an added story. Again, that'll be in the episode that drops Monday, possibly this

weekend. But before we get into today's stories, I just want to give you the quick reminder that I always do. Please leave me a review on whichever platform you listen on. It really, really, really helps support my show. I cannot stress that enough. Don't forget to follow me on Instagram, TikTok, subscribe on YouTube. I am everywhere. Jordan is my lawyer. I actually just made a Twitter as well, so you can follow me on there too. So without further ado, let's get into today's stories. about a week ago a federal judge in washington dc ordered former vice president mike pence to testify in that federal investigation of former president trump's alleged interference with the 2020 election and just this week on wednesday pence said he will not appeal that ruling and he will comply with the subpoena. This is a little bit surprising considering in February, he did say that he was going to fight

the subpoena. Actually, in part, he said, I'm going to fight the Biden DOJ subpoena for me to appear before the grand jury because I believe it's unconstitutional and it's unprecedented. He even said he'd be willing to take it to the Supreme Court. And he did fight it. It's not that he didn't fight it. He did fight it in district court, but he's just not taking it any further than that. So it's just a little bit of a change of heart where, you know, in February he was saying he would take it to the Supreme Court. And now he's saying he's he's just going to leave it be him and his attorneys argued in district court that basically him serving as the former president of the Senate on January 6th makes him a member of the legislative branch, and therefore he's

shielded from testifying under the speech and debate clause of the Constitution. The speech and debate clause is meant to protect members of Congress from questioning about their legislative acts. So his argument stems from the fact that on January 6th, he was presiding over the certification of votes, and that was his function as president of the Senate. And therefore, he couldn't testify. The speech and debate clause protected him, and he could not be summoned to testify about his legislative actions.

He did reiterate that Trump was wrong to pressure him and to reject the votes on January 6th, and that Trump's actions were reckless. But he also said that, you know, with that said, under the Constitution in this moment, I believe my duty is also clear. And he goes into that whole speech and debate clause protection. The federal judge presiding over the matter didn't didn't completely agree with his take on why he shouldn't have been you know he he shouldn't testify but he did rule that it was true in part so he ruled that mike pence would have to testify about any potential illegal actions committed by former president trump and any conversations he had with President Trump prior to January 6th,

but that he wouldn't have to testify about his own actions on January 6th. With that said, the ruling is under seal, so we don't really know all the specifics and everything that the judge said in making this ruling. But following the ruling, Pence himself said, quote, I am pleased that the court accepted our argument and recognize that the Constitution's provision about speech and debate does apply to the vice president, but how they sorted that out and what other testimony might be required, we're currently reviewing, end quote. And like I said, he decided not to not to appeal this. But just because he won't appeal this, just as a side note, former President Trump can

appeal the ruling that executive privilege doesn't block Pence's testimony. So we'll see with that. This ruling is a historic ruling for for one reason, though. For the first time in U.S. history, this ruling sets the precedent that vice presidents, like presidents, are entitled to a form of immunity. Obviously, this was done by a lower court judge, so it could be overturned at some point down the road. But for now, it stands that vice presidents are entitled to a form of immunity. So that takes us into story number two, which is that a 25-year-old first grade teacher that was shot and seriously injured by her six-year-old student has filed a lawsuit against school officials for $40 million. And once you hear the allegations in this complaint,

I want you to let me know if you think $40 million is justified. I've posed the same question to both my TikTok followers and my Instagram followers, and it seems that the overwhelming majority, if not everyone, honestly, thinks that this is justified, and some even think that she deserves more than $40 million. So the complaint accuses school officials of negligence, gross negligence, and reckless breach of duties. We're going to get into the duties that are said to have been breached, but let's go over the facts before we get into the law. So John Doe is what they're calling this little boy, obviously for privacy purposes. He is a minor. He was six years old at the time that he shot his first grade teacher, and he had a history

of random violence. This was known to everybody. He attacked students. He attacked teachers. He was violent at home. He was even removed from the school during the 2021-2022 school year for strangling and choking a teacher. This is when he was five years old in kindergarten.

Keep that in mind. So from there, once he was removed from school, he was sent to a childhood center, like a child care center, but he was allowed back at school the following school year. So when he returned in the fall of 2022, he was placed on what they called a modified schedule because obviously he had a history of violence. And there were times not only did he strangle and choke the teacher, but he also would what they called a modified schedule because obviously he had a history of violence and there were times not only did he strangle and choke the teacher but he also would chase students around the playground with a belt and attempt to whip them and he was doing all of this while cursing at his teachers so clearly you know he had some behavioral issues so he was under this modified

schedule and it required him to be accompanied to school by at least one of his parents during the school day. On the day of the shooting, which was January 6th, he wasn't accompanied by a parent and school officials let him stay in school anyway. Now, let me just say, it's unclear whether this modified schedule was in place only for the spring semester, because if that's the case, then when he returned from winter break in January, he wouldn't have been required to have his parents. So I'm not sure if the modified schedule was just for the fall semester or it was for the entire year, in which case it's even more negligent of the school to let him be there without his parents. But on the day of the shooting, he didn't have any parents

there. Two days before the shooting, on January 4th, the boy grabbed his teacher's cell phone, refused to give it back, and threw it on the ground and shattered it, completely shattered it. She called school security. No one from school security responded. So then she called the guidance counselor. And this kid was suspended for one day. So he wasn't in school for January 5th, but then he came back to school on January 6th, which we know was the day of the shooting. On that day at lunchtime, around 1115 AM, the teacher reported to the assistant principal that the boy was in a violent mood that day. He had threatened to beat up a kindergartner during lunchtime. He had angrily

stared down a security officer in the lunchroom. So it sounds like they went to lunch. He was, you know, acting up at lunch and she went to the assistant principal while lunch was still going on and said, hey, it's clear he's in a violent mood today. The complaint says that the assistant principal had no response. She didn't even look up at the teacher, acknowledge the teacher. And apparently she had a reputation for this. And she had a reputation for not really reprimanding students. Like sometimes teachers would send the students to the assistant principal and she would just give them a piece of candy and send them back to the room.

So then, you know, she reports the assistant principal. Assistant principal doesn't do anything. Well, 30 minutes goes by and at 1145 or around 1145, two students told a reading specialist at the school that the boy had a gun in his backpack and the reading specialist asked to look through the kid's backpack, but he refused to give it up. So he wouldn't let them look through it. Somehow he's still, he's still going through the day. No one takes him to the principal's office or anything like that. So then he goes to recess. And at about 1230, the teacher, his teacher, informed another teacher that she saw him take something out of his backpack and thought that maybe it was a gun. So she saw him take it out

of his backpack and she thought she saw him put it in the pocket of his sweatshirt. So the teacher goes back to the classroom while they're all at recess, not his teacher. So not the teacher filing the lawsuit, but a different teacher goes to the classroom and searches through the kid's backpack and doesn't find anything. Well, that's not really surprising because if the kid did take the gun out of his backpack and put it in his sweatshirt, then it wouldn't be in his backpack. So then this teacher doesn't find anything in the backpack, again goes to the assistant principal, and the assistant principal's response is that the boy's pockets are too small to hold a gun and didn't do anything. So recess ends, and around one o'clock, one of the teachers pulls aside one of the boys that was playing with John Doe at recess. And the teacher asked this

little boy about their interaction. You know, did did he say anything to you? Did anything weird happen? And the boy's response was that he couldn't tell her because John Doe would hurt him if he did. But eventually she ended up getting some answers out of him. And he ended up telling the teacher that John Doe did show him a gun in his pocket. So from here, obviously, it's getting more serious. I mean, at this point, nothing's been done about the situation, but they're getting more and more evidence that this kid has a gun. So the teacher that finds out he has a gun from this other little boy contacts the school office and the music teacher picks up and tells the, you know, she tells him, she tells the music teacher what happened. The music teacher then goes to the assistant principal. This is around 1 11 PM. The assistant principal said that she was aware of the threat, that the backpack had already been searched, and that there was nothing they could do. She said that the boy's mom person, not just his backpack, but actually

searched his pockets and stuff. And the assistant principal told the guidance counselor he couldn't do this. Within an hour of that, so this was around 1.10, 1.15, around 1.50-ish, the kid pulls his gun out while the teacher is sitting at her reading table in the classroom and shoots his teacher. She spent two weeks in the hospital. She's had four surgeries since. Now, the boy, he's not going to be charged because the prosecutor already said he's too young and the prosecutor has yet to decide if any adults are going to be charged because

the boy got this gun from his parents and his parents say that the gun was stashed away in a closet up high in a place where they didn't think he could get it and they had no idea that he got it and took it to school. So in total, the complaint has four counts. The first count is specifically against the school board and the assistant principal. And it basically says that the assistant principal breached her duty of care to the teacher by doing nothing to ensure that John Doe was not in possession of a gun. And she could have allowed a search to be conducted because she had three warnings from various teachers and staff, but she didn't. She actively chose not to do that.

And because she didn't do anything to ensure that there was no gun, she breached her duty of care. Now, you might be asking, well, what does the school board have to do with this? The school board is involved because of vicarious liability. So if you've never heard of vicarious liability, it's basically the concept where an employer is liable for the acts of an employee when that employee is acting within the scope of employment. So here, the employer of the assistant principal is the school district. Now, count two is specifically in regards to the school board, and that's dangers heightened their duty to inspect

thoroughly until they knew with reasonable certainty that the danger had been identified and removed. And the complaint says that the school district breached its duty when it chose not to inspect despite being put on notice. Now, obviously it's the assistant principal, but through vicarious liability, they're putting the blame on the school district and the assistant principal, but mostly the school district. So the issue here, the issue with this count is going to be one, whether the school board is responsible for the actions of the school, and two, whether the duty to inspect extends to inspecting for weapons. Like, is the school district responsible for inspecting for weapons or are they too far removed?

And that's the school's duty. But then maybe the school district is response vicariously responsible for the school. So it's going to get a little bit complicated. But then, you know, counts three and four, again, are in regards to negligence, gross negligence, and reckless breach. And they're saying essentially the same thing, that the school district, the assistant principal, the school itself, they all had this duty to this teacher to keep her safe. And they didn't do what they had to do or what they should have done. It's going to be interesting to see what happens with this case, whether it settles out of court before it ends up going to trial. If it ends up going to trial, I mean, I have a feeling this woman is going to get close to what she's asking for.

If my followers are any indication of where the country stands, then it sounds like that's the way it's going to go. But she's seeking $40 million, like I said, and that's for things like permanent bodily injuries, physical pain, mental anguish, humiliation, lost earnings, you know, limitations resulting from the injuries, medical expenses, attorney's fees. I mean, there's a lot. I would imagine the school tries to settle because they're not going to risk something like this, having to pay out $40 million. But we shall see, as with anything else. Yesterday around 4 45 PM, Tennessee's house of representatives voted 72 to 25 on the expulsion of Justin Jones, one of three

representatives that chanted in protest at Tennessee's Capitol last week in favor of gun reforms. So let's talk about it. This is an unprecedented move, to say the least. There has never been a House representative expelled for breaking a rule. And this is, you know, he broke a rule. That's what he did. So you might be wondering how a lawmaker can get expelled. Let's talk about it. And let's go through some numbers, too, to kind of give some context to this story.

So at the federal level, since 1797, the entire history of U.S. Congress, only 20 members of Congress have been expelled, 15 from the Senate and five from the House. 17 of those 20 happened in 1861 and 1862, and they were expelled for supporting the Confederacy. After that, only two people have been expelled, one in 1980 and one in 2002. In 1980, Michael Myers, a Democratic House representative from Pennsylvania, was expelled after being convicted of bribery in connection with the Abscum scandal. The Abscum scandal, if you haven't heard of it, was an FBI sting operation in the late 1970s, early 1980s that led to the convictions of seven members of Congress related to corruption.

More recently, in 2002, Jim Traficant, a Democratic House representative from Ohio, was expelled after being convicted on 10 counts, including bribery, racketeering, and tax evasion. Now let's talk about the state level. So I said since the Civil War, only two lawmakers from the Tennessee legislature have been expelled. One was in 1980 when Representative Robert Fisher was expelled for accepting a bribe to kill legislation. And more recently, in 2016, Representative Jeremy Durham was expelled for sexual misconduct. This goes without saying that expulsion is the most serious form of disciplinary action that you, you know, you can give, you can hand down in the legislature. It's governed specifically by Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2 in the United States Constitution, and I believe Article 2 in the Tennessee Constitution. And basically it says that Congress can make its own rules and they can expel a member

with the concurrence of two-thirds vote. The Republicans have a super majority in the House and the Senate in Tennessee and therefore they voted a two-thirds vote today to expel Justin Jones. Now I said he's one of two representatives that led the chant last week on the House floor. So let's talk about what happened and then you can share your thoughts with me either on my website or on social media, whatever you want. Last week on Thursday, Gloria Johnson, Justin Jones, and Justin Pearson led a gun control chant from the House floor. So this happened after the speaker had called a recess.

Initially, Justin Jones spoke up about his voting machine being off. So he had left the room, went to be with some protesters that were at the Capitol. And when he came back, his voting machine was turned off and he spoke up about it. And when he brought it to the attention of the speaker, Speaker Sexton told him that he was out of order and he called a five minute recess. Well, these three representatives went to the well, which is essentially like the House floor. And Justin Jones had a little megaphone with him,

and he's the one who was leading the gun control chant. This all started around 10 a.m., by the way. It was during the morning session when the House was voting on a bill, actually. The bill they were voting on was dealing with the expansion of the state's education savings account program. Kind of irrelevant to the story, but just a little tidbit of information. After this chant started, there was some chaos. There was some name calling. At one point, Justin Jones, he pointed his finger in this representative's face and said that, you know, the House will never accept him and called him brown face. And it got a little crazy in the House. So eventually, the House Republican caucus went out potentially to vote on how to move forward, because when they returned, the speaker told these representatives

that were leading this chant that while he understood their frustrations, how they expressed themselves was unacceptable. So then on Monday, three Republican representatives moved to expel the three Democrat representatives that led this chant. And the Republicans argued that Democrats broke House rules by speaking without being recognized. They crowded the House clerk's desk. And it was it was a willful disregard for House rules, essentially. Speaker Sexton, who's also a Republican, said that they violated principles of decorum and procedure on the House floor. And then he said during an interview on a radio show, he said, quote, two of the members, Representative Jones and Representative Johnson, have been very vocal about January 6th in Washington, D.C., and what that was and what they did today was equivalent, at least equivalent,

maybe worse, depending on how you look at it, of doing an insurrection in the Capitol, end quote. So Representative Pearson, who was one of the representatives that was leading the chant, wrote a letter to the House. And what he said in part was, quote, my walk to the House floor in a peaceful and civil manner was not an insurrection. I wanted to listen and respond to the voices of Tennesseans who were not given the opportunity to speak in a meaningful dialogue with us, end quote. So you have the Republicans arguing that the Democratic representatives violated rules. The Democrats, on the other hand, argue that those representatives were just doing what they had to do to prevent future child gun deaths and that they had pure intentions.

And the Republican Party treats their own party very differently, considering in the past, there have been Republican representatives that have been accused of child sexual assault, and Republican leaders then didn't want to expel those members. So their whole thing is, how can you expel these members who were using their voice in the simplest of terms, but yet you won't expel representatives who have been charged with things as bad, or not charged, but accused with things as bad as child sexual abuse. So before the vote was held, Justin Jones said, quote, my prayer to you is that even if you expel me, that you still act to address the crisis of mass shootings. Because if I'm expelled here,

I'll be back out there with the people every week demanding that you act. If you expel me, I'll continue to show up because this issue is too important. So the vote was held yesterday at around 4.45 p.m. and Justin Jones was expelled. I'm curious to hear how this sits with you as far as just, I guess, fairness and the First Amendment goes and what precedent this this sets. You know know free debate and freedom of speech are arguably the most important components of democracy it is a foundation of our country and if the government and the people in the legislature don't feel that they can have that freedom of expression and freedom of speech you know what does that mean? So I just want your thoughts and maybe you think it was warranted and that's totally fine. I'm not here to tell you how

or what to think. I just want to spark some thoughts. What do you, how do you feel about this? Do you think that they got what they, you know, what they deserved? That's very possible. You may think that rules are rules and they broke the rules and therefore they no longer get the opportunity to serve in the House. Or maybe you're on the other side of that and you think, no, this was completely unjustified. So let me know your thoughts. The last thing I will say is that the Constitution in Tennessee does say that no member can be expelled twice. So he can run for reelection and he can serve as a representative again and he cannot be expelled another time so that is that and with that let's go into the fourth story this week on tuesday chipotle filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against sweet green alleging that sweet

green's new chipotle chicken burrito bowl uses Chipotle's trademark of the word Chipotle to sell its product and that it's very similar and directly competitive to Chipotle's own chicken burrito bowl. Now, the actual counts of this lawsuit include trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false designation of origin, and unfair competition. I'm going to go over each briefly, but let's talk about the facts of the case first. According to the complaint, Chipotle says it first sent a demand letter to Sweetgreen, but Sweetgreen chose not to respond, and they didn't stop using the name Chipotle Chicken Breedable, so Chipotle filed this lawsuit. Now, if you don't know what Chipotle or Sweetgreen are, I'm pretty sure all of us have

has had or has heard of Chipotle, but it's a fast, casual Mexican restaurant. It specializes in burritos and bowls where you kind of walk through this fast food line and you tell them what you want in your bowl or on your burrito and they throw it on there and that's it done in like less than five minutes, depending on how long the line is. But then sweet green, it's also fast casual. And it's also the same style where you walk up and you tell them what you want in the bowl, but it's more of a healthy restaurant that specializes in salads and bowls. So it's a little bit different. Anyway, Chipotle owns the trademark for Chipotle. And in total, they have five marks. Marks are just, it's a short word for trademark.

So if you hear me say marks, I just mean trademark. They have two word marks and three design marks. What are the difference? So there's two ways to register a trademark. You can have a word mark or you can have a design mark. A word mark is just a typed word in standard format. It's just text. When I say that, think of just typing out the word Chipotle and that is the trademark. In that case, you're just protecting the actual word. You're not protecting a logo. But then you have a design mark

and that's a stylized kind of text. That's your logo really. So it's stylized as to the font, the size, the color, the style, and there you're protecting the logo. So in this case, Chipotle owns two word marks that just are, it's Chipotle in text, and then three design marks that are different variations or different logos that they own. So on March 30th, Sweetgreen launched the Chipotle chicken burritable. And their burritable has chicken, warm wild rice, cilantro, red onion, shredded cabbage, tomato, lime, cilantro, black beans, and Chipotle salsa. Now that's important because what's interesting is that chipotle's complaint only describes the chipotle chicken burrito bowl

as having chicken, rice, black beans, and salsa. It doesn't mention the other four ingredients like red onion, cabbage, tomato. It doesn't mention that stuff because it doesn't help their case. So that's why I always say these complaints are written to the plaintiff's narrative. It also doesn't mention that the rice is a warm wild rice. It just says a grain base. I believe it just says grain base. It doesn't specify what kind of rice it is because if they did specify, that would hurt their case because Chipotle only offers white rice and brown rice. Whereas this

bowl from sweet green is a warm wild rice. It's completely different. The complaint goes on to say that to promote this Chipotle chicken breedable, sweet green has used Chipotle's trademark of the word Chipotle in numerous marketing channels. Now keep in mind, all this means is that they've been promoting the name, right? Because they're saying Chipotle, the word Chipotle is trademarked by Chipotle. So when Sweetgreen is promoting their Chipotle chicken burrito bowl, Chipotle is claiming that's a trademark infringement. The complaint also talks about, there's this image in the complaint. And again, this linked on my website i always tell you guys all of my sources are always on my website

jordanismylawyer.com scroll to the bottom that's where you'll find everything so the complaint talks about this red sign out front of sweet green it uses it as an example of their their infringement so what's funny is that this sign it just says Chipotle chicken burrito bowl. The background of the sign is like an orangey reddish color. And there's a picture of the bowl. Well, separate from that, Chipotle, one of their design marks is a red, almost rounded rectangle. And inside of that red rectangle, it says Chipotle in capital letters. And Chipotle's argument is that this sign out front of the Sweet Green store,

this like red-orange sign promoting their new menu item, is nearly identical to this Chipotle trademark of this red rectangle with the letters in it. And it's not apples to apples. If you guys want to look at the complaint, like I said, it's on my website. You can see what I'm talking about. But they also supported their argument using social media posts where followers commented things like tagging Chipotle saying, get a load of this. And they use that to show consumer association, which is actually really good for their case because trademark infringement is all about whether the consumer is confused. Confusion in consumers is a big part of that analysis.

So when they can show comments like that, you know, Chipotle, get a load of this new menu item at Sweetgreen and show that people are thinking of Chipotle when they see this, that's great for their case. So all of the counts are based on the Lanham Act, also known as the Trademark Act of 1946. It's a federal statute that governs trademarks, service marks, and unfair competition. So to establish a violation of this act, Chipotle has to show that one, it has a valid and legally protectable mark, which it does. Two, that it owns the mark, which it does. And three, that defendants use of this mark is likely to cause confusion in consumers.

And the first count is in regard to trademark infringement specifically. Trademark infringement is, again, I said, there's a likelihood that consumers will be confused about the affiliation or connection between two entities. And a lot goes into this appearance, commercial impression, meaning there's a lot that goes into the analysis. But what Chipotle says is that Sweetgreen's unauthorized use of the word Chipotle is likely to cause confusion or mistake as to the affiliation or connection between Chipotle's new menu item and Chipotle the restaurant. irreparable harm. And the only way to fix this is an injunction, which I've told you guys about before. When you seek an injunction, it basically is asking the court to put an order in place that stops the defendant from doing whatever they're doing. So they would have to get rid of

this menu item and stop promoting it altogether if Chipotle was able to get the injunction that they're looking for. The second count is trademark dilution. Think of this as this is really meant for famous trademarks. So think of Apple, Wendy's, Johnson and Johnson, things like that, where you know their logo, you can envision it in your head. And what trademark dilution is, is when a company like this brings, you know, they say our mark is being diluted because someone or something else is using something similar to our trademark. The third count is false origin. This just happens when a seller uses any word, name, symbol, or false or misleading description. That's likely to cause confusion as to the product's origin. We usually see false designation of origin cases and counterfeit cases.

So think of, you know, I've seen on Amazon, they sell, let's say fake Gucci stuff or fake Cartier stuff. That's a false designation. That's a good false designation claim because you're confusing the consumer as to who this product is made by and where it comes from. And then their last count is unfair competition, which is a broader claim. And unfair competition actually includes trademark infringement, but it also includes other unfair business practices. And unfair competition, unlike the others, is governed mainly by state law. So in this case, it's governed by California law, because that's where the lawsuit is happening happening rather than that federal statute that we talked about before. So we know that they're seeking injunctive relief, but they're also asking for Sweetgreen to pay Chipotle any profits they've received by using Chipotle's trademarks. They're

also asking for monetary damages for lost profits and trouble damages, which multiplies the damages by three. And finally, they're asking for cost of the lawsuit plus interest. So that's the story with Chipotle suing Sweetgreen. But if you guys want to share your thoughts, as always, you can share them on my website, jordanismylawyer.com. On this episode descriptions webpage, scroll down to the bottom, and that's where you will find the comment section. You can also comment on any of my social media platforms, Instagram, TikTok. I usually always post a corresponding video

to those platforms as well. That's the end of this episode. I hope you enjoyed it. Please don't forget to leave me a review and I will talk to you, I would usually say on Friday, but I'm gonna say on Monday this time because that's when my episode's gonna drop,

most likely about the indictment. So I'll talk to you on Monday this time, because that's when my episode's going to drop, most likely about the indictment. So I'll talk to you on Monday.