(WGHP) — A Texas-based fast food chain that has plans to expand into North Carolina is suing a locally-based restaurant after they say it violated terms of an agreement that allowed them to use similar names.

A lawsuit was filed in court on Tuesday, where Whatabrands, LLC., the parent company of Whataburger, alleged trademark infringement and the violation of a contract against What-A-Burger #13, a small chain of restaurants with locations in Mount Pleasant and Locust.

Whataburger, which plans to expand into North Carolina and announced a Charlotte location made in April 2024, was founded in 1950 in Texas. The North Carolina What-A-Burger #13 advertises having been operational since 1969, nearly two decades later.

“Local news outlets in North Carolina began speculating as early as 2022 about Whataburger’s potential expansion into the state,” according to the suit.

“Whataburger contacted certain of Defendants on October 13, 2022, in anticipation of its entry into North Carolina to notify them that continued use of their What-A-Burger #13 Mark creates a likelihood of confusion and thus infringes the WHATABURGER Mark given Whataburger’s nationwide priority in its WHATABURGER Mark as of 1957,” the lawsuit states.

They go on to say that they signed a coexistence agreement with What-A-Burger #13, allowing them both to operate under certain conditions to minimize confusion between the two brands. This agreement was effective May 19, 2023, according to the documents.

“Per the Agreement, Signatory Defendants could use the What-A-Burger #13 Mark only in connection with their existing brick-and-mortar locations (identified above) and in connection with their then-existing single food truck in limited ways.”

Now, Whataburger says that the owner of What-A-Burger #13 created a new Norwood-based LLC, WAB #13, before the agreement went into effect and did not tell Whataburger about it. The What-A-Burger owner reportedly characterized the new LLC as “part of a single ‘small, family owned, fast paced business’ founded in 1969,” like the other What-A-Burger #13 restaurants.

The Texas restaurant chain has accused the North Carolina owner of breaching their agreement by using the What-A-Burger #13 Mark with their food trucks “in ways that were not allowed under the Agreement.” Despite contact with the defendants over alleged breaches in their previously signed agreement, Whataburger claims that What-A-Burger #13 continues to operate in a way that violates the agreement.

Whataburger claims that this alleged violation automatically terminates their agreement with What-A-Burger #13 and is now asking the court to order that What-A-Burger #13 stop using the name.

“Defendants’ unauthorized use of the What-A-Burger #13 Mark is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive customers and potential customers of the parties as to some affiliation, connection, or association of Defendants’ business with Whataburger, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendants’ goods or services,” the lawsuit alleges, going on to say that the continued use of the mark, “removes from Whataburger the ability to control the nature and quality of products and services provided.”

“Unless these acts by Defendants are restrained by this Court, they will continue, and they will continue to cause irreparable harm to Whataburger and to the public for which there is no adequate remedy at law.”

Not the first time

Whataburger also filed a similar lawsuit against a restaurant in Virginia using the name What-a-burger in 2003.

The suit, accessed through web archive, was brought up against What-A-Burger of Virginia, Inc. and What-A-Burger of Newport News, Inc. It was ruled that the companies were unaware of the other’s existence when they were founded, and the originals founders were dead by the time the suit was brought up in court.

The court ruled in 2004 that “no actionable damages had occurred” and “There is no evidence — nor can we imagine any — that consumers are currently likely to be confused about whether the burgers served by Virginia W-A-B come from Texas or Virginia.”

DURHAM, N.C. — A court magistrate has ordered squatters at a Durham, North Carolina Airbnb to leave. But it’s not over yet – they have over a week to appeal the decision.

The Airbnb host, Farzana Rahman, had to take the guests to court to try and get them out.

“I want them out. I don’t know if they have vandalized the place or not, no idea. We will only find out when they leave,” she said.

Thursday, a Durham County magistrate heard Rahman’s case for a summary ejectment. The Airbnb guests did not show up in court. The magistrate did grant Rahman a summary ejectment, but that doesn’t mean the guests will be evicted right away. They still have 10 days to appeal.

“Good that I was granted the eviction, but the fact that I have to wait 10 more days to get them out is a little frustrating,” Rahman said.

Earlier this month, Rahman reached out to Troubleshooter Diane Wilson with our sister station, ABC11 in Raleigh when her Airbnb guests did not check out of her rental on May 24.

The reservation details show the guests booked a stay at Rahman’s rental starting Oct. 25. The guests paid through Airbnb monthly and were scheduled to checkout May 24 the following year.

When Rahman’s cleaning lady went to clean the rental property, she found a shocking discovery.

“They answered the door and they said, ‘No, we haven’t moved out.’ She said, ‘Should I come tomorrow?’ And they said, ‘No, don’t come back,’” Rahman said.

After the May 24 deadline came and went, Rahman called the police. In a video Rahman recorded, you can hear a person staying at the rental tell police they will leave. The man inside the rental said: “I assure you we will be gone in the morning. If they can just give us until the morning, that’s all I’m asking for, so we can get our stuff and we can go.”

The next morning, the guests weren’t gone. Instead, they put up a handwritten “no trespassing” sign on the front door.

“We will vacate the property when you file the proper paperwork with the civil magistrate for an eviction, for we are legal residents of this home,” the sign read.

Wilson tried to talk to the Airbnb guests, but they did not answer the door or return her calls. Wilson eventually got an email from them stating they were the tenant and had all communications records and receipts.

The email said they only asked that the homeowner communicated with them to give them keys. They claim they were overcharged, had no cleaning and messaged Rahman more than 100 times without receiving a response. They also claimed their checkout date was June 24 not May 24.

Rahman said none of that is true.

“Nothing that they have said they’ve done, so I have no grounds to believe they will leave,” she said.

Rahman said before ABC11’s investigation, Airbnb was not offering any help. But following ABC11’s involvement, Rahman shared with Wilson new messages from Airbnb.

The company stated it was working with the AirCover team regarding damages, additional cleaning and payment for the additional nights the guests stayed past their checkout date.

Rahman reiterated that none of this happened from Airbnb until ABC11 got involved. After ABC11 contacted Airbnb several times over the past couple days, the company finally provided the station with a statement Thursday afternoon.

“Issues like this are very rare on Airbnb and our team is continuing to work with our host to provide support,” the statement read.

As for Rahman, she must wait until June 25 to see if the guests file an appeal with the court. If they don’t, she can file a writ of possession to have authorities remove the Airbnb guests from her property.

But again, the guests have texted Wilson that they will be out by June 24. They also claimed they would email Wilson proof of their issues and the agreement they have to stay at the property, but they have not done that.

GRAHAM, N.C. (WGHP) — The Alamance-Burlington School System may have violated state law and ABSS school policies when dealing with mold in schools last year, according to a letter from the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations to North Carolina state Sen. Amy Galey (R-Alamance).

In a statement, Galey said:

“It is absolutely critical that school boards ask lots of questions and make sure that laws, policies, and procedures are being appropriately followed, even in challenging times. Solutions to operational challenges such as mold and budget shortfalls cannot get a rubber-stamp from the school board, which is elected to hold administrators accountable.

“ABSS has new administrative leadership and an interim superintendent. It is important that we reflect on the events and lessons of the last few years and build relationships, improve practice, and resist the impulse to attack or assign blame. Each member of the school community, including not only the school board but also the Alamance County commission, has the opportunity to renew its commitment to improving outcomes for children in Alamance County.”

According to the letter released by Galey’s office on Wednesday, the state senator had requested that the commission review “some of the well-publicized issues involving the Alamance-Burlington School System.”

The commission told Galey that it had contacted ABSS and “raised concerns that state statutes and ABSS board policies may not have been followed.” ABSS reportedly justified its decisions by citing “the emergent need of mold remediation.”

The commission found that the school board did not provide reasons for its choice of companies to perform mold remediation work and did not provide evidence that ABSS made its selection “after careful pricing,” potentially violating ABSS Policy 6450 which addresses how the district can purchase services. Additionally, the board may have violated ABSS policies 6420 Contracts with the Board and 6421 Preaudit and Disbursement Certifications.

The district may have also violated North Carolina General Statutes, including G.S. 115C-31, known as The School Budget and Fiscal Control Act, and G.S. 115-441, which addresses required preaudit certification.

The commission looked into the district’s 2022-2023 budget and found that the district had reportedly spent more than $4 million more than it had appropriated in its General Fund, Other Special Revenue Fund and Capital Outlay Fund.

“The primary issue here is the exposure to undue liability when … the [Board of Education] and ABSS are in a financially precarious situation,” the commission said.