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.
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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.
And no one has been sued.
