Definition: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Input: It's a serious case of trademark madness: food-delivery startup DoorDash has been sued by one of the restaurants that it buys food from, In-N-Out Burger. 
  
 One might think the West Coast burger chain would be at least tolerant of DoorDash and its competitors, companies that could expand the market for prepared meals at no extra cost or risk to the restaurants. But In-N-Out lawyers make the case that DoorDash is actually violating its trademark rights with its unlicensed delivery business. 
  
 In the complaint (PDF), In-N-Out attorneys claim that DoorDash uses an "Imitation Logo" of In-N-Out on its website, which "is intended to, and has, confused consumers as to Defendant's authority to delivery Plaintiff's food items." They charge DoorDash with trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition. The lawsuit was filed on November 6 and first reported yesterday by TMZ. 
  
 Lawyers for In-N-Out say DoorDash's delivery vehicles aren't compliant with the California Retail Food Code, and In-N-Out would never authorize DoorDash "or any other entity to deliver its food products to consumers without the necessary food handling licenses and food safety procedures in place." 
  
 In-N-Out explained to the Eater blog its belief that consumers would be confused by another company delivering its burgers: 
  
 DoorDash is using our food and trademarks in a way that implies we have some kind of partnership or agreement with them, when that is not the case. We have asked DoorDash several times to stop using our trademarks and to stop selling our food. Unfortunately, they have continued to prominently use our trademarks and serve our food to customers who believe that we are responsible for their delivery. Prior to filing the lawsuit, we tried contacting them several more times but they never responded to our phone calls or letters. 
  
 DoorDash responded to press inquiries only by saying that the company has "various relationships with different merchants." 
  
 Trademark cases hinge on whether the defendant's use of a protected mark will create a "likelihood of confusion" among customers. So would burger-buyers somehow think that their DoorDash driver actually works for In-N-Out? That scenario is so unlikely that In-N-Out doesn't even try to argue it. Rather, the burger chain alleges that use of its logo will cause "actual and prospective customers ... to believe that Plaintiff has approved or licensed Defendant's use of its marks, or that Plaintiff is somehow affiliated or connected with Defendant or its services or has been authorized by Plaintiff to deliver Plaintiff's food products." 
  
 In other words, customers might think that the two companies struck some kind of deal when really they haven't. In-N-Out is looking for a type of consumer "confusion" that's not about the source or goods of a product but about the legal relationship between the two companies. If consumers are pulled off the street and surveyed about those relationships—and it's likely that is exactly how In-N-Out will proceed to prove its case—confusion will seem to abound. 
  
 The relevance of that "confusion" seems questionable, though. Fighting over what licensing the public may believe is required is a huge stretch of trademark's consumer-protection function, suggesting that if consumers don't draw the correct legal conclusion, someone is violating the law. That type of confusion will abound forever. 
  
 Third-party delivery services are well understood. If the burgers come cold, consumers savvy enough to download DoorDash's app will be savvy enough to blame DoorDash for their unhappy meal. ||||| Loyal fans of In-N-Out Burger might be thrilled at the prospect of having a Double-Double and Animal-style fries delivered to their front door, but the iconic burger chain feels otherwise. The company has filed a lawsuit against food delivery startup DoorDash, reports TMZ. 
  
 Similar to other third-party delivery services like GrubHub, DoorDash — which raised an additional $35 million last spring for a total valuation of around $600 million — offers customers the ability to order food from numerous restaurants via its website or mobile app. 
  
 In the complaint, filed November 6 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, In-N-Out accuses the California-based delivery startup of trademark infringement and unfair competition, and seeks a permanent injunction to get DoorDash to stop delivering its food. The lawsuit says that "despite the fact that [DoorDash] is in no way affiliated with [In-N-Out], [DoorDash] has advertised, and continues to advertise, that it delivers food from [In-N-Out]’s restaurants" — even displaying a fake In-N-Out logo. 
  
 In addition to the fact that In-N-Out never authorized DoorDash to deliver its food, the burger chain is also concerned about how the delivery company might handle its burgers and fries: "Further, [In-N-Out] has no control over the time it takes [DoorDash] to deliver [In-N-Out]'s goods to consumers, or over the temperature at which the goods are kept during delivery, nor over the food handling and safety practices of [DoorDash]’s delivery drivers," the original complaint states. 
  
 According to the court documents, In-N-Out is seeking a jury trial; but in the meantime, it seems DoorDash has heeded the burger chain's request. While DoorDash currently offers delivery from hundreds of California restaurants, In-N-Out no longer appears to be among them. 
  
 In-N-Out isn't the only restaurant to be infuriated by DoorDash's practices: Last week Eater NY reported on several Manhattan and Brooklyn restaurants that are upset with DoorDash for inflating menu prices — an $11 cheesesteak costs $16.95 through DoorDash, for example — and using their companies' names, logos, and menus without permission. 
  
 This isn't the first lawsuit DoorDash has faced recently, either. Earlier this year the delivery company — along with peers GrubHub and Caviar — was sued for misclassifying its delivery drivers as independent contractors; the suit alleges that its drivers are treated as employees, but receive none of the benefits. 
  
 A spokesperson for DoorDash issued the following statement to Eater: "DoorDash uses its innovative logistics technology to deliver the very best food and products in neighborhoods across the country. While we have various relationships with different merchants, we are proud to help people get their favorite food delivered directly to their door." 
  
 Update 11/11, 7:08 p.m.: A spokesperson for In-N-Out sent the following statement: "DoorDash is using our food and trademarks in a way that implies we have some kind of partnership or agreement with them, when that is not the case. We have asked DoorDash several times to stop using our trademarks and to stop selling our food. Unfortunately, they have continued to prominently use our trademarks and serve our food to customers who believe that we are responsible for their delivery. Prior to filing the lawsuit, we tried contacting them several more times but they never responded to our phone calls or letters." 
  
 Check out the court documents, below: 
  
 In-N-Out Vs. DoorDash 
  
 Eater Video: Anthony Bourdain really loves In-N-Out |||||
Output:
Popular chain In-N-Out is suing a California startup to make sure customers actually have to put on pants if they want their burger and fries. Eater reports In-N-Out filed a lawsuit against DoorDash, which lets customers order food from hundreds of restaurants through its website and app, on Nov. 6 in an effort to bar the startup from delivering its food. In-N-Out has charged DoorDash with trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition, according to BoingBoing. The lawsuit claims the "unlicensed delivery business" uses a fake In-N-Out logo on its website to trick consumers into thinking they have an agreement with In-N-Out to deliver its food, which is not the case. The lawsuit also states DoorDash doesn't have proper food safety and handling procedures in place. Eater reports despite DoorDash apparently stopping In-N-Out deliver for the time being, the burger chain is angling for a jury trial. But Joe Mullin at Ars Technica isn't so sure In-N-Out has a case. As long as customers understand the DoorDash driver doesn't work for In-N-Out, it may not be relevant that they aren't completely clear on any possible legal agreements between the companies. "Third-party delivery services are well understood," Mullin writes. "If the burgers come cold, consumers savvy enough to download DoorDash's app will be savvy enough to blame DoorDash for their unhappy meal." But it's not just In-N-Out. Eater reports a number of other restaurants are upset at DoorDash for using their names, logos, and menus while simultaneously jacking up prices.