> The letter went on to demand that Crunchbutton stop listing Jo’s on its website; stop offering delivery service from any Brown dining establishment; stop collecting student ID numbers (for payment purposes); destroy any retained ID numbers; and stop using Brown facilities for any marketing or promotional activities.
Except perhaps the first one, none of these seem unreasonable to me. The article also seems to gloss over aspects of the situation that could make this "innovator" look bad. Why did they need to collect student ID's for "payment purposes?" What exactly was this "defamatory statement?"
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.
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.)
I think the point is that Crunchbutton did in fact cease and desist all of these activities, and instead of working with them or at least letting them be, Brown's legal department is continuing to harass Crunchbutton.
I'm not sure about Brown, but at my school we had student IDs which could also act as credit cards for "school money". Meal plans would come with a set amount of school money and you could load more on the card. This money could then be used at places around campus as well as local restaurants and grocery stores that would accept the card. Certain services (such as delivery.com which was popular in the area) also accepted school cards. So my guess is that the student IDs were simply the number associated with the credit card for using special school money.
> 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.
Doing this can be a violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 USC 1125(a):
"(1) Any person who ... uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which— (A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, ... shall be liable in a civil action ...." (Emphasis added.)
Your comment seems to imply that services like "Dining-In" and other Seamless providers that have independent delivery services require the blessing of the restaurant to engage in that activity. Is that actually true?
It doesn't sound like Brown has a particularly solid case. I see no reason why an outside company can't request student ID numbers, nor can I see a problem with an outside company paying someone to go to the restaurant and pick up a bunch of sandwiches now and again.
Step 1: Write nastygram with no intention of filing a lawsuit and hope the empty threats scare away the people you don't like.
It was due to my alma mater's (McGill) poor security, but IDs + some minor extra info like DOB were able to be used for a lot of stuff (if i recall correctly ID was the username with DOB as the default password and voila, you got free reign to everything from financial information and even withdrawing a person from Uni entirely) when I was in school.
It is mostly due to the trusting and insular nature of universities where they assume that there isn't going to be malicious attacks, but I can see why they rather not have that information given away.
There are safety/security implications to having a company e.g. use student ID numbers to do the various nefarious things companies do these days with personal information. Especially in a campus environment, with a restaurant that seems like it wasn't open to the general public.
Collecting student ID numbers is a big no-no, given the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. While the startup may not be bound by FERPA, Brown is responsible for protecting those student ID numbers. The University of Tennessee has a decent guide to the statute: http://ferpa.utk.edu/questions.php
I imagine Brown has some sort of student run "Student Services", e.g. fridge rentals, bagel deliveries, bouncers, etc..., and would welcome service such as yours if it were run by its own students.
Why not offer an affiliate/franchise campus program?
I remember when a student would walk through the dorms each afternoon, yelling 'Bagelman is here'. His business was sanctioned by the university, otherwise it was his own affair.
These days, instead of yelling, you could have a phone app which would alert customers that the seller is near, transmit orders to him/her, maybe even use a mobile payment scheme to complete the transaction for whatever.
I met these guys back in September and we talked a lot about Providence restaurants. Glad to see they're doing well enough to get sued by Brown... Sort of...
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
Except perhaps the first one, none of these seem unreasonable to me. The article also seems to gloss over aspects of the situation that could make this "innovator" look bad. Why did they need to collect student ID's for "payment purposes?" What exactly was this "defamatory statement?"
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.
[+] [-] ynniv|13 years ago|reply
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.)
[+] [-] bo1024|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ktrgardiner|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dctoedt|13 years ago|reply
Doing this can be a violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 USC 1125(a):
"(1) Any person who ... uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which— (A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, ... shall be liable in a civil action ...." (Emphasis added.)
Section 43(a) claims get litigated all the time.
[+] [-] hojoff79|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrockway|13 years ago|reply
Step 1: Write nastygram with no intention of filing a lawsuit and hope the empty threats scare away the people you don't like.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit?
[+] [-] Kylekramer|13 years ago|reply
It is mostly due to the trusting and insular nature of universities where they assume that there isn't going to be malicious attacks, but I can see why they rather not have that information given away.
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cjkarr|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhluongo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhluongo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelhoffman|13 years ago|reply
And no one has been sued.
[+] [-] michaelhoffman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mechnik|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mechnik|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] notmarkus|13 years ago|reply