Connect with us

California

American burger giant sends cease and desist to tiny California bar for ‘copying’ its menu

Published

on

American burger giant sends cease and desist to tiny California bar for ‘copying’ its menu


An American burger giant is cracking down on its trademarks as it sends a small San Diego sports bar a cease-and-desist letter for copying its menu items. 

In-N-Out is forcing Fairplay to change the name of their animal fries and double-double burger as it claims it infringes on the chain’s trademarks – a feat the small sports bar rolled its eyes at. 

‘Cease & Desist what you’re doing right now, you’ve gotta see this,’ Fairplay wrote in a social media post on National Cheeseburger Day along with a photo of the redacted letter. ‘We’ve officially been recognized by Big Burger!’ 

In the letter, the chain reminded Fairplay that it owned ‘multiple federal and state registrations’ for the use of the words ‘animal’ and ‘double-double’ in relation to ‘burgers and restaurant services.’ 

Advertisement

Fairplay isn’t new to playing fair, as its namesake would suggest, but that doesn’t mean they don’t play dirty. 

In compliance with the letter, the restaurant did change the name of the menu items, but not before poking fun at In-N-Out’s non-trademarked phrases, including renaming their animal fries to ‘Secret Menu Fries,’ which retail for $12 and $28, depending on size. 

In-N-Out is forcing Fairplay to change the name of their animal fries and double-double burger as it claims it infringes on the chain’s trademarks in a cease-and-desist letter (pictured) – a feat the small sports bar rolled its eyes at

'Cease & Desist what you're doing right now, you've gotta see this,' Fairplay wrote in a social media post on National Cheeseburger Day along with a photo of the redacted letter. 'We’ve officially been recognized by Big Burger!'

‘Cease & Desist what you’re doing right now, you’ve gotta see this,’ Fairplay wrote in a social media post on National Cheeseburger Day along with a photo of the redacted letter. ‘We’ve officially been recognized by Big Burger!’

In the letter, the chain reminded Fairplay that it owned 'multiple federal and state registrations' for the use of the words 'animal' and 'double-double' in relation to 'burgers and restaurant services'

In the letter, the chain reminded Fairplay that it owned ‘multiple federal and state registrations’ for the use of the words ‘animal’ and ‘double-double’ in relation to ‘burgers and restaurant services’

They renamed the sandwich to ‘Burger Burger,’ which costs $16, according to its new menu. 

Despite the name change, the two restaurants’ fry recipe remains the same with cheese, caramelized onions, and 1,000 island-style dressing. In-N-Out’s version retails for around $6. 

However, its burgers are slightly different, with In-N-Out’s coming with more ingredients. 

Advertisement

The California chain’s Double-Double combo – which retails for around $11 – comes with two patties, two slices of American cheese, onions, lettuce, tomato, and its secret sauce on a toasted bun with fries. 

Fairplay’s Burger Burger comes with two patties and two slices of cheese and a side of fries. It does not say if it comes with any vegetables or sauce, although up-charged substitutions like fried pickles and mac and cheese can be made. 

Fairplay shared the cease-and-desist letter with its patrons as a way to ‘announce we’ve made some sudden name changes to our menu.’ 

‘This feels like the perfect time to pop In-N-Grab a Burger Burger & some Secret Menu Fries. Or double up! Sorry, we don’t mean to tell you what to order,’ it joked. 

‘We’re not animals…just not our style.’ 

Advertisement
Fairplay's 'Secret Menu Fries'

In-N-Out's 'Animal-Style' fries, which are available on their secret menu

In compliance with the letter, the restaurant did change the name of the menu items, but not before poking fun at In-N-Out’s non-trademarked phrases, including renaming their animal fries to ‘Secret Menu Fries’ (left). In-N-Out has ‘Animal-Style- fries on their secret menu 

Fairplay's 'Double-Double' was renamed the 'Burger Burger' (pictured)

In-N-Out's Double-Double (pictured)

They renamed the sandwich to ‘Burger Burger’ (left). The California chain’s sandwich (right) comes with two patties, two slices of American cheese, onions, lettuce, tomato, and its secret sauce on a toasted bun, whereas Fairplay’s is two patties and two slices of cheese 

The San Diego restaurant encouraged its patron to order both new renamed items. 'Sorry, we don’t mean to tell you what to order. We’re not animals…just not our style,' it poked fun

The San Diego restaurant encouraged its patron to order both new renamed items. ‘Sorry, we don’t mean to tell you what to order. We’re not animals…just not our style,’ it poked fun 

DailyMail.com has reached out to Fairplay and In-N-Out for comment.  

The legal letter comes as In-N-Out continues to battle copycat restaurants that are popping up in Mexico called In-En-Aut, which have left the chain on high alert for others riding its coattails. 

In order for In-N-Out to maintain its trademarks it has to be used them and enforce them legally. 

The chain has extended its trademark to Mexico, although it does not have any stores outside the US.  



Source link

Advertisement

California

California bill to bar police from taking second job with ICE advances in state Assembly

Published

on

California bill to bar police from taking second job with ICE advances in state Assembly


Wednesday, March 4, 2026 4:43AM

CA bill to keep police from moonlighting with ICE advances

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KABC) — A bill that would prevent police officers from moonlighting with federal immigration enforcement agencies, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is advancing through the California State Assembly.

AB 1537 passed the State Assembly’s committee on public safety on Tuesday.

The bill also requires that officers report any offers for secondary employment related to immigration enforcement to their place of work.

Those failing to comply could face decertification as a peace officer in California.

Advertisement

The bill was introduced by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, whose district includes Mar Vista, Ladera Heights, Mid-Wilshire and parts of South Los Angeles.

Copyright © 2026 KABC Television, LLC. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Can’t win in primary election? Drop out, California Democrats say

Published

on

Can’t win in primary election? Drop out, California Democrats say


play

California Democrats running for governor, your party has a message for you. Think carefully about your candidacy and campaign ahead of the swiftly approaching filing deadline.

California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks urged candidates looking to assume the state’s highest office to “honestly assess the viability of their candidacy and campaign” as March 6, the final day to declare candidacy, nears. Hicks said that concerns about the crowded field of Democrat candidates “persist” in an open letter on Tuesday, March 3.

Advertisement

It comes as five leading candidates, several of which are Democrats — Katie Porter, Eric Swalwell, and Tom Steyer — are in a “virtual tie” per a recent poll, the Desert Sun reported, which is part of the USA TODAY Network.

Two Republican candidates pushing out California democrats in the gubernatorial bid may be “implausible,” but “it is not impossible,” Hicks said of the reasoning behind his latest message. Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, both Republicans, lead in RealClear Polling’s average of various polls.

The party chair spotlighted the need for California Democrats’ leadership, particularly over Proposition 50, the voter-approved measure that will temporarily implement new congressional district maps, paving the way for Democrats to secure more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“If in the unlikely event a Democrat failed to proceed to the general election for governor, there could be the potential for depressed Democratic turnout in California in November,” Hicks said. “The result would present a real risk to winning the congressional seats required and imperil Democrats’ chances to retake the House, cut Donald Trump’s term in half, and spare our nation from the pain many have endured since January 2025.”

Advertisement

During a press conference on March 2, Gov. Gavin Newsom said that when he is out in communities, people aren’t talking about the governor’s race. It’s an observation he called “interesting,” considering voting in the primary election starts in May.

“It’s been hard, I think, to focus on that race,” Newsom said, pointing to the attention on President Donald Trump, redistricting, and other matters.

What exactly is California Democratic Party asking of candidates?

In his open letter, Hicks gave directions to candidates.

First, assess your candidacy and campaign. If you don’t have a viable path to the general election, don’t file to get your name on the ballot for the primary election in June. Also, be prepared to suspend your campaign and endorse another candidate by April 15 if you decide to file but can’t show “meaningful progress towards winning the primary election.”

Advertisement

When is the next California election? Primary election in 2026

California voters will trim the field of candidates for governor on June 2. Only the two candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of party preference, will move on to the November election.  

Paris Barraza is a reporter covering Los Angeles and Southern California for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at pbarraza@usatodayco.com.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Supreme Court blocks California law limiting schools from telling parents about trans students

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks California law limiting schools from telling parents about trans students


The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a California law that limited when schools could require staff to disclose a student’s gender identity, clearing the way for schools to tell parents if their children identify as transgender without getting the students’ approval.

Rear view of multiracial students with hands raised in classroom at high school

The decision came after religious parents and educators, represented by the Thomas More Society, challenged California school policies aimed at preventing staff from disclosing a student’s gender identity.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean and professor of law at the University of California Berkeley School of Law, said the ruling favors parents’ ability to be informed. “The Supreme Court today rules in favor of the claim of parents to be able to know the gender identity and gender pronoun of the children,” Chemerinsky said.

Advertisement
FILE:{ }transgender flag against blue sky background { }(Photo: AdobeStock)

FILE:{ }transgender flag against blue sky background { }(Photo: AdobeStock)

The decision temporarily blocks a state law that bans automatic parental notification requirements if students change their pronouns or gender expression at school. The Thomas More Society called the decision a major victory for parents, saying the court found California’s policy likely violates constitutional rights.

Chemerinsky said the Supreme Court’s action is an emergency ruling. “This law is now put on hold. So what this means is that schools can require that teachers and other staff inform parents of the gender identity or gender pronouns of children,” he said.

scotus.PNG

Kathie Moehlig, founder and executive director of Trans Family Support Services, said she is concerned about how the ruling could affect students who do not have supportive families.

“I am really concerned about our kids that do come from these non affirming homes, that they know that they’re going to get in trouble, that they’re going to possibly have violence brought against them possibly kicked out of their homes,” Moehlig said.

Moehlig said parents should eventually know, but that the conversation should happen when a student feels safe. “Our students are going to be less inclined to confide in any adults that might be able to help to get them access to mental healthcare, to a support system. They may still tell their peers but they’re certainly not going to tell any other adult,” she said.

Advertisement

Equality California, a LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, shared a statement:

Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, released the following statement from Executive Director Tony Hoang in response to today’s U.S. Supreme Court shadow docket ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta regarding California’s student privacy protections for transgender youth. Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in this case is deeply disturbing. By stepping in on an emergency basis, the Court has effectively upended California’s student privacy protections without hearing full arguments and before the judicial process has run its course. While not surprising, this move reflects a dangerous willingness to short-circuit the established judicial process to dismantle protections for transgender youth. While this case continues to be litigated, the ruling revives Judge Benitez’s prior decision, which broadly targets numerous California laws protecting transgender and gender-nonconforming students — threatening critical safeguards that prevent forced outing and allow educators to respect a student’s affirmed name and pronouns at school. These protections exist for one reason: to keep students safe and ensure schools remain places where young people can learn and thrive without fear. To be clear: today’s decision does not impact California’s SAFETY Act, which prohibits school districts from adopting policies that forcibly out transgender students. The SAFETY Act remains in full effect, and we will continue defending it. Transgender youth deserve dignity, safety, and the freedom to learn without fear. We will never stop fighting for transgender youth and their families. Equality California will continue working with parents, educators, and advocates to ensure schools remain safe, welcoming, and focused on the success and well-being of every student.

The case now returns to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which will decide whether the California law is constitutional.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending