No, the OP came here asking for suggestions. If he wants this addressed, he should “tattle” (because I guess we’re in 3rd grade now; adults usually say “report”).
“Coke” is a registered trademark so they’d still be on the hook.
In addition, you acknowledge that the Site itself is protected by copyright law. You further acknowledge that Coca Cola owns the trademarks “Coca Cola”, “Coke” and all associated Coca Cola trade names, service marks and logos. All other trademarks used on the Site are the property of their respective owners. Coca Cola trademarks and Coca Cola logos may only be used in conjunction with goods produced by Coca Cola or with the express prior approval of Coca Cola. For the avoidance of doubt, the Coca Cola corporate logo may only be used by Coca Cola.
That coke logo on in store fridges and coolers is changeable. Couple of screws.
Usually its part of the restaurant or store furnishing.
I worked in a concession stand that had 8 of them. The Band concessions owned them.
All Coca-Cola products. Only.
Our coke salesman was adament we couldn’t put other branded pop in them.
We tried to be cheap by buying generic water bottles. But, nope. Coke said only Dasani water could be in them.
Oh, @LSLGuy , I live where coke means a drink. But Coke is specific to the brand. And people definitely have their preference. If its just “cola” and you want “Coke”, you’ll be perturbed.
Quoting this and agreeing with the rest of this post.
Corruption is corruption. Once businesses are in the habit of lying to their customers and vendors, it gets worse. The corrupt business cheats more in other ways, because no one pushed back earlier. Other businesses are incentivized to cheat as well, because more profits and no penalties. This is not the culture I want to live in.
The original poster is perfectly justified to let Coca-Cola know a restaurant is selling cola with inconsistent branding.
This is a situation where the stakes are exceedingly low. Ignoring the matter, going to a different restaurant, or contacting a cola company are all reasonable actions in my book.
So it is o.k. to steal as long as you personally aren’t stolen from?
The third option is the way I would go, all accusations of “tattling” notwithstanding.
This is a separate issue altogether. And it would depend on many factors, are the burgers here really good, how much further would the OP need to drive to get to the next burger joint, etc.
You mean the kind of community where honesty and truth are held in high esteem? Mis-labeling civic duties and good samaritanism as ‘tattling’ is a petty way to get your point across.
Yes, of course that’s what I mean. Excellent paraphrasing, and well done.
The kids who tried to stop “tattling” were invariably the cheaters and bullies at the schools I grew up in. Was your experience different?
Oh, absolutely. That’s why I distinguish between times when it’s important to tell, and times that it’s mostly just the joy of getting someone in trouble.
I don’t really care to continue explaining why I see this as more in the second category. I’ve given my reasons, and others disagree.
Just for giggles, I looked up “tattling” in the dictionary. It read:
“To report another’s wrongdoing”
By labeling reporting as tattling, one is admitting that there is wrongdoing going on. I don’t understand the concept that it is somehow wrong for a community to work together to rid itself of corruption.
ETA:
I saw nothing in the OP that hinted at he would be reporting “just for the joy of getting someone in trouble”.
Cambridge gives a more complete definition:
I guess I missed the part where the OP said something was stolen from them. Or maybe it was just because the OP and no one else said there was a theft. Now if you think there was a theft here then why didn’t you advise calling the police? That would have been bad advice because the police would tell you that was not theft. Was it criminal fraud? Not for the de minimis amount of money involved and I don’t think even a small claims court would consider it as a civil matter. So what are you left with? Do you think the OP should claim something was stolen just because it didn’t turn out the way they wanted?
You have?
I say this with complete sincerity - I don’t see any post where you did, in fact, give a reason for this.
You said you don’t like seeing people working as unpaid Pinkertons for the Coca Cola company, but you didn’t explain why taking steps to get the burger joint to stop lying about the product they’re selling us undesirable.
(And by the way, it’s pretty rich that you’re upset with how people summarize your position, when you summarize their position as being volunteer Pinkertons…)
Strawman argument, since my advice wasn’t to call the police, but to just let Coca Cola know what is going on.
In that case, the definition is even less applicable.
People didn’t propose he tell an authority figure (the government); they suggested he tell the aggrieved party (Coca Cola).
And he wouldn’t be doing it to cause trouble; he’d be doing it to rectify the problem, IE get the restaurant to stop lying about the product they sell.
“Often” but not always. Regardless, here’s the important bit “that someone else has done something bad”. If you want to avoid being tattled on, don’t do bad things - simple.
Reporting this issue does not qualify as tattling, in any case.
Very valid point.
I don’t think the OP should lie about a crime being committed.
The OP can of course try to work this out by contacting management and telling them ‘hey, what you’re doing is wrong, and you should stop’. But if management refuses, then OP can go to the party that is injured by the restaurant, and that does have standing to sue - the Coca Cola Company - and they can take care of it with a cease and desist letter.
By the way, Coca Cola may be the only entity with standing, but they aren’t the only one damaged. Consumers are damaged because they lack the appropriate information they need to properly make a choice in their consumption habits; and competitors of the burger joint in question are harmed by unfair business practices as well.
In this case, the harm to any of the parties is pretty small. So what? That doesn’t make it OK.
Also I should again say I don’t intend on doing anything about it, as said in my original post it’s more of a thought experiment because I still eat at the place once a month. Nowhere did I actually say I intend on filling a direct lawsuit.