[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.