[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.