Purchase of Domino’s Pizza Chevy Spark Quickly Turns into Legal Battle
You’d think that scoring a wrecked Domino’s Chevy Spark delivery car at auction would be perfectly legal. But the law isn’t that simple!
It was only a couple of years ago when chain pizza giant Domino’s came up with a rather ingenious idea. Take a fuel-sipping Chevy Spark, modify it specifically to fit their needs, and use it to deliver pizza. Genius, right? The “Domino’s DXP Car,” as it was known, could hold up to 80 hot pies and featured a built-in warming oven as well as a passenger side storage system for dipping sauces, napkins, 2-liters of drinks, and more. It’s the kind of vehicle that any car enthusiast who loves weird and wacky stuff would certainly appreciate. But even though you can technically buy a Domino’s Chevy Spark, that doesn’t mean you won’t necessarily find yourself in legal hot water afterward.
At least, that’s the situation popular YouTuber Samcrac found himself in after purchasing a wrecked Domino’s car at auction. The cool little contraption only set him back $525, and he quickly announced his plans to rebuild the car. As you might imagine, he was pretty ecstatic about the project, and his series of videos documenting the process have accumulated millions of views to date. Heck, it even seems like this kind of thing might be excellent free advertising for Domino’s, right? Well, apparently, they didn’t see it that way.
Shortly after the original video aired, Samcrac received a request to take it down. The request stated that he “improperly obtained the pizza car” and that he “was showing a trademark” in his video. He also goes on to talk about his belief that everything he’s doing falls under fair use. Seems plausible, right? After all, he obtained the car legally and we can’t even count the number of videos on the Internet that feature trademarked images. Undaunted, Samcrac carried on fixing up his Chevy Spark score. He even humorously (halfway) attempts to censor everything Domino’s related in the video above.
Needless to say, Domino’s didn’t find the humor in any of this. Their next step? To forceably try and take the car from Samcrac’s possession. At first, they offered to buy the Spark, return it to stock, and even wrap it in his favorite sports team’s logo. Ironic, no? After a bit of back and forth and a couple of declined offers, the other party simply stated they would pursue legal action if Samcrac didn’t in fact give up possession of the car. So he lawyered up and even started a Go Fund Me to help pay the legal fees, though it’s now closed.
Unsurprisingly, the journey of this Domino’s Chevy Spark has caused quite the commotion all over the internet, not just YouTube. This latest video sparked a pretty heated discussion on Reddit, where virtually everyone defends Samcrac. Many believe that Domino’s should have removed their logos before selling the car, as many companies and municipalities do. Most feel that this is a bad look for the pizza giant and say they should just enjoy the free advertising. However, those folks aren’t lawyers. And someone who claims to be one, user ConeCandy, chimes in with a very different take on the issue.
“As silly as it all seems, the guy’s rationale doesn’t hold much water. The issue here isn’t that he has a car with trademarks on it, it’s that the car itself is so unusual that the content he is creating could be seen as being affiliated with Domino’s. The pizza box example he uses isn’t different. If you see a video of someone eating Domino’s pizza out of a Domino’s pizza box, that’s normal.
If you saw someone eating pizza while wearing a Domino’s uniform, however, you may assume they are an employee. And you may assume that the branded content is coming from Domino’s, which compels Domino’s to defend its marks if they want to keep them under the law.
Other things the guy is wrong about:
- Intent isn’t required for trademark infringement. It can play a role when it comes to damages, or whether infringement is actually more severe, like counterfeit goods. But trademark infringement is, at its core, a question as to whether or not consumers will associate a product/content/messaging/etc with a source.
- Fair use is a defense you use in court and is decided by a judge. It isn’t a shield that lets you avoid court.
So what happened here is a Domino’s car was sold to a private party. Which gives them private possession of the private property. This doesn’t, however, give them any rights or license to the intellectual property associated with the vehicle. Those are a separate issue that uniquely come into play due to how the vehicle is being used by the guy to create his own content which incorporates a trademark he doesn’t own from a party who isn’t willing to cooperate.”
One thing’s for sure — we haven’t heard the last of this saga. And while we tend to feel a little bad for Samcrac, the law is a tricky and unforgiving thing. Stay tuned!
