[vitus]

Trademark infringement is a big one, and yes, it can be applied even if the trademark isn't registered.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125#a

1125(a)(1) is pretty unambiguous in this context. If Grubhub is using a restaurant's name to "deceive as to ... the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods", that's cause for civil action.

California also has a new law explicitly addressing this issue:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

... and yes, there's an aptly-named website called https://www.grubhublawsuit.com/ describing a class-action lawsuit on this specific topic.

And no, that website isn't an infringement of Grubhub's mark if it's not likely to be confused with Grubhub's business. (It'd be a different story if Grubhub were a law firm in the business of filing class action lawsuits.)

[chrisseaton]

You're allowed to use trademarks to factually describe what a product is.

Your linked law suit is about something entirely different to what's being discussed in this thread - that's about describing restaurants as shut when they aren't.

[vitus]

Whoops, the Grubhub class action lawsuit in this context is

https://www.classlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/Grubhub-Cla...

You're not allowed to use trademarks to masquerade as the other party, especially if you're then trying to conduct business as if you were that other party.

Taking a step back: is there any trademark usage that you view as infringing?

Using an example from another side discussion: I hope we can agree that if you made a laptop and called it a Macbook Pro, Apple would sue the heck out of you, and they'd be in the right. Where we seem to disagree is whether it's infringement if you set up a storefront, name it "Apple Store", and exclusively sell products that you've purchased from an Apple-run Apple Store.