Given the choice, steak burgers (less gristle/fat), but be careful what you order.
All can be good, but some lie.
Watch the trademarks. You shouldn’t have to, but you do. Some trademark ‘steak’ in the name, when you get shit burgers; I know. Higher offerings are fine, but beware the lower offerings.
Edit to add: they call them ‘steaks burgers’, which they are not; I gave them to friends to feed their dogs. A trademark trick, shady, that they should move off of. The rest are fine, but crap like the other doesn’t inspire much confidence.
@CroutonOllie (IP attorney rant incoming) You use the term “trademark” as if it denounces a mark in trade. A steak burger?
Surely every single restaurant that serves a steak burger is in violation of something that everyone expects when ordering: hence, the mark in trade. Who owns the ® for “steak” burger? No one. It is generic terminology.
If you want to TM ® “steak” you need a combination of unique identifiers. The American Beef Council would have some serious issues, as well as the USPTO, if you tried it on a burger.
Marketing and design people are going to vomit, but: “steak burger” would be the most perfect trademark for, say, a car. Non descriptive… unique. However, would you buy a steak burger car? Probably not, but if the company was wildly successful decades from now, your kids might.
Understand, but this place trademarked the words I placed within the marks, along with their company name and trademarked that. There seems to be some pretty lax interpretations of how many parts of this and that, that are required to state that something is so.