[JohnMakin]

Cease and desists are the equivalent of asking firmly but nicely in the legal world. They don't hold any legal bearing or obligate you to any sort of response. They are usually hoping you get intimidated into doing what they ask. You can always call their bluff and say 'no,' although I see in comments the OP neglected to mention they also patched/fixed the technique used to get this data so it probably was more of this, I hope.

[ShakataGaNai]

True. But he was using a variation of the Waffle House logo that their lawyers would argue would "confuse the average consumer", and he was using the "Waffle House" name in a domain. In something that was actually directly related to the real Waffle House. Unfortunately, their lawyers would have an easy time with that lawsuit.

If op had named it something different, and didn't use such a closely inspired logo, he probably could have kept it up. Or at least had a much stronger case of fair use. But this is always the problem with "fan appreciation" and our trademark system. In order for Waffle House to keep their trademark, they must enforce it. They cannot let a fan use/abuse it, or else it can get to the point where a judge can say it is been made generic (ex: escalator).

When I was young, I learned this lesson via a very scary letter from Warner Brothers. The lawyers aren't always trying to be dicks (though some clearly are), but they are paid to protect the brand. And someone registering a site with your brand name, putting up a logo very similar to your real logo.... is always 100% of the time going to get that C&D letter. And eventually a lawsuit if you fail to comply.

[dmurray]

> But he was using a variation of the Waffle House logo that their lawyers would argue would "confuse the average consumer", and he was using the "Waffle House" name in a domain. In something that was actually directly related to the real Waffle House. Unfortunately, their lawyers would have an easy time with that lawsuit

For this to be trademark infringement, wouldn't he need to be selling products or services that compete with Waffle House? I don't think this is an obvious easy win for the WH lawyers at all, apart from the fact that they would have much greater legal resources.

[kevincox]

No, there just has to be a risk that consumers think that this is somehow associated with Waffle House. The point of a trademark isn't directly commercial. It isn't about preventing other people from making money from your brand. It is about protecting the integrity of your trademark so that when users see your name and logo they know it comes from you.

Basically trademarks are like a signature, they "prove" who you are doing business with.

[athenot]

> there just has to be a risk that consumers think that this is somehow associated with Waffle House

More than risk; some of the tweets could be actual evidence of that confusion.

I think if the general branding vibe of the site was more about hurricanes and only made a reference to the "Waffle House index" via NOAA, it might have had better chances of surviving. And also a big disclaimer that there is no affiliation with WH would have also helped.

[no_wizard]

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

However, you should always speak to a lawyer if you get any kind of legal notice, but especially of this type. Never assume, thats how things can go sideways, even if you may initially have had standing to dispute the notice.

Always talk to a lawyer before taking any action in situations like this.

[drob518]

Yes, but… lawyers cost money and you need to decide if the gain is worth the cost.

[dragonwriter]

Disregarding a demand letter can cost far more money than a consultation with an attorney, and you need to decide if the gain from that choice is worth the cost, hence the need for a consultation.

(Though its less likely, complying with such a letter can also have hidden costs, so a consultation may be a good idea even if that is your inclination, but you are usually far more likely to experience adverse consequences beyond those you voluntarily and knowingly undertake from disregarding than from complying wiht such a letter.)

[shmeeed]

Out of curiosity, what could be the hidden cost of complying?

[JohnMakin]

anything can be a legal notice if you say it’s a legal notice. what makes a cease and desist lawyer a legal notice? a lawyer signing it? you can find lawyer services online to send these. you can use chatgpt to send a letterhead that looks convincing. It’s not “legal” by any means until it enters a court of law, which is not guaranteed and in the disinterest of both parties usually. which is why these letters are sent.

[PhotonHunter]

Is it completely correct to say they have no legal bearing? As I understand things, they can be used to establish a date when someone was made aware of infringement, and that date can be used to start the clock on enhanced damages.

[dowager_dan99]

How would they confirm that you received an email or even letter mail? They're not serving you. This is about potentially proving that the owner is trying to protect their IP, which is required for it to be considered enforceable.

[Molitor5901]

I would have handled it better, not with lawyers but with PR people.

[JohnMakin]

my point is that it’s probably a PR person sending a precrafted email or letter like this and you shouldnt take it seriously for a nonprofit hobby project unless it contains a summons. they’re asking nicely before they escalate, but most companies contract out very expensive lawyers to handle these things that bill by the minute and they aren’t going to waste it on a hobby site with even mild pushback or no response. otherwise they’d just sue.