101–110 of 218 posts
> React Server Components run on the server, and unlike client-side components, they don’t return raw HTML you can easily inspect in Dev Tools Isn't it the opposite? RSC returns raw HTML. Did you mean that it obscures the API fetches it makes?
Replace logo with a picture of a waffle and name it the Waffle Index?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if they have the bandwidth/expertise at the company to hire him, or at least ink a marketing contract w/ their PR department
They literally have a locations information site, which has a map, and shows if the locations are open or closed. So, they already have a web team capable of doing this because they already have it. https://locations.wafflehouse.com/ What this person did was summarize this to a single map with red dots and a "% closed" indicator at the top. And tying it to the connotation that it is due to storms/natural disasters wi…
I'm surprised at some of the comments here that don't see Waffle House's side of this. You're a company, and some third party makes a website that very much looks like it could be official, using your name and logo in part, and this website is purporting to know the open/close status of your stores. Literally an indicator if people should bother going out to spend money at your business or not. An actual signal to ec…
To add to that - if a company is not actively protecting the trademark, even in well intentioned cases, then someone can use the trademark and point to a precedent of the brand not defending its trademark, especially if it’s probable that the company was aware of the usage. Waffle House (or any other brand) must and 100% always will send out a C&D for trademark misusage, otherwise they lose legal protection for that…
Time to change that braindead law then. Copyright has a "fair use" provision, and trademark law could be adapted similarly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To add to that - if a company is not actively protecting the trademark, even in well intentioned cases, then someone can use the trademark and point to a precedent of the brand not defending its trademark, especially if it’s probable that the company was aware of the usage. Waffle House (or any other brand) must and 100% always will send out a C&D for trademark misusage, otherwise they lose legal protection for that…
> Waffle House (or any other brand) must and 100% always will send out a C&D for trademark misusage, otherwise they lose legal protection for that trademark. Time to change that braindead law then. Copyright has a "fair use" provision, and trademark law could be adapted similarly.
What you can't do is claim it's yours. Or let people think it's yours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To add to that - if a company is not actively protecting the trademark, even in well intentioned cases, then someone can use the trademark and point to a precedent of the brand not defending its trademark, especially if it’s probable that the company was aware of the usage. Waffle House (or any other brand) must and 100% always will send out a C&D for trademark misusage, otherwise they lose legal protection for that…
> Waffle House (or any other brand) must and 100% always will send out a C&D for trademark misusage, otherwise they lose legal protection for that trademark. Time to change that braindead law then. Copyright has a "fair use" provision, and trademark law could be adapted similarly.
I'm surprised at some of the comments here that don't see Waffle House's side of this. You're a company, and some third party makes a website that very much looks like it could be official, using your name and logo in part, and this website is purporting to know the open/close status of your stores. Literally an indicator if people should bother going out to spend money at your business or not. An actual signal to ec…
People make decisions on whether to try going to a place or not on this all the time. Sites use company logos in all kinds of ways, not the least of which is display in image SERPs, whether they fit brand guidelines or not.
The difference is this was a small site without the leverage to ignore WH.
The data should be accurate as possible, and if it isn't, the person should take the site down for that reason. But otherwise, they should have just changed the branding and kept it up.
I'm surprised at some of the comments here that don't see Waffle House's side of this. You're a company, and some third party makes a website that very much looks like it could be official, using your name and logo in part, and this website is purporting to know the open/close status of your stores. Literally an indicator if people should bother going out to spend money at your business or not. An actual signal to ec…
I think we all see Waffle House's side of this, but there is a best, better, and worst way to engage a customer. A cease and desist is the worst, it's taking something which could have been handled by PR, to a legal threat. Regardless of Waffle House's legal rights, which they do have, from a public perception and way to run a company it was not the right approach. They should have embraced this guy and his website,…
You've escalated where threat of escalation should have sufficed. Hey we need you to change your site to make it obvious this is a fan site and not ours. Otherwise we'll have to send a properly lawyery letter in a few weeks if we don't hear back from you about a plan.
One of these throws a person's life into utter chaos. The other gives them time to be a grownup about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To add to that - if a company is not actively protecting the trademark, even in well intentioned cases, then someone can use the trademark and point to a precedent of the brand not defending its trademark, especially if it’s probable that the company was aware of the usage. Waffle House (or any other brand) must and 100% always will send out a C&D for trademark misusage, otherwise they lose legal protection for that…
> Waffle House (or any other brand) must and 100% always will send out a C&D for trademark misusage, otherwise they lose legal protection for that trademark. Time to change that braindead law then. Copyright has a "fair use" provision, and trademark law could be adapted similarly.
Cease and desist letters can be scary. In my opinion, (which is not a legal one) theirs was pretty chill and straightforward.
In case you're curious, hafflewouse.com is available ;)