[ynniv]

When your "innovation" consists of leveraging someone else's product, it's generally bad form (even if not illegal per se, unless it amounts to trademark infringement) to make it seem like you have an association with them when you don't.

I know there were recent discussions about copyrights with the Aereo decision, but come on: this company submits an order for delivery to you. THEY ARE LISTING WHAT YOU MIGHT GET. I can assure you that the manager of the shop isn't complaining about the increased business. In fact, I can't even see why there is a complaint. Perhaps this is a loss leading sandwich?

Delivering Jo's sandwiches is not Crunchbutton's core business, which is charging a premium to deliver above average food with below average hassle. If the university really wants to swing their IP around, all they will succeed in doing is making another local food business more successful. (Come to think of it, they're probably preemptively attacking Crunchbutton over something frivolous to protect their high rent on campus food service real estate.)

[rayiner]

My guess is that the letter was sent because: 1) Crunchbutton was collecting student ID numbers, which rightfully raises security concerns; 2) This was a campus restaurant not open to the public, and the school has a legitimate interest in how it is used.

Again, a letter being sent doesn't mean a suit is being filed. The reason a lawyer sent it is because of the potential for legal issues, but by itself the letter has no more force than a "we don't want you to do this, please stop."

The article is devoid of any details and written to paint Crunchbutton in a good light. We have no idea what was actually on the website that prompted the letter. But if I were creating a delivery site for orders to a campus-operated restaurant to campus students, and collecting school ID's, I would think it pretty prudent to run it by the school, even if only for the potential security concerns.

[ynniv]

I am familiar with the concept of nastygrams.

You said: When your "innovation" consists of leveraging someone else's product, it's generally bad form (even if not illegal per se, unless it amounts to trademark infringement) to make it seem like you have an association with them when you don't.

And this makes little sense in the current context. Their innovation has nothing to do with Brown or how Brown delivers food. They used the shop name while they were doing business with them, and they collected information (voluntarily) that was required to conduct business.

The article is devoid of any details and written to paint Crunchbutton in a good light.

Honestly, are we reading the same article? I know that you're looking for specific details that a court would use, but most of the information is provided. Outside service tries to fill a customer demand while increasing business for a local provider, someone higher up is displeased by this and dispatches the lawyers to find something wrong. What this really says to me is that universities are deterring competition in their meal programs, which of course means there is extra room for competition.

[cube13]

The restaurant in question is owned by the university. It's not a third party or anything else. So the university is perfectly in their rights to tell other people how they want to submit orders.