Legal twists and turns
In April 2024, Judge Hunt trimmed parts of the case, dismissing false association claims brought by restaurants that had not registered their marks. However, she allowed trademark infringement claims from MF Tasty LLC and Iowa City Coffee Co. to move forward. Other plaintiffs were permitted to pursue false association claims under the Lanham Act, even without registered marks.
Settlement talks regained momentum after Grubhub’s motion to dismiss was largely denied. By May 22, both sides had hammered out terms.
Grubhub Responds
A Grubhub spokesperson said the company was ready to move forward:
“While the practices alleged in this case have not been part of our business model for some time, we’re pleased to settle this case so we can focus on continuing to deliver value to the more than 415,000 merchants who choose to partner with us daily.”
Legal Teams in Play
Grubhub is represented by Isaac J. Colunga, Sophie E. Honeyman, and Rachel Smoot of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.
The restaurants and proposed class are represented by Elizabeth A. Fegan of Fegan Scott LLC, along with Rosemary M. Rivas, Wynne Tidwell, and Brian Johnson of Gibbs Law Group LLP.
Counsel for the restaurants has not yet issued a public comment on the settlement.
