Getting a Cease and Desist from Waffle House

Overall reaction to Waffle House’s response

• Many see this as a big missed marketing/PR opportunity: free goodwill, viral attention, and a chance to “lean into” the Waffle House Index mythos at essentially no cost.
• Others argue the response is exactly what a large brand will do “every single time” when someone uses their marks and appears official.
• Several commenters say this story is a reminder that Waffle House is a corporation and should be treated as such: don’t expect “cool” behavior over legal caution.

Trademark, branding, and control

• Strong consensus that using the logo, brand colors, and “Waffle House” in the domain made the site look official and is classic trademark infringement territory.
• Multiple people say US law effectively forces active enforcement or risk dilution; a C&D is seen as the standard tool, even for benign uses.
• Some push back that licensing or a “used under permission” arrangement was possible; others counter that this creates ongoing overhead and risk, so the cheapest option is to shut it down.
• Debate over how absolute the “must enforce or lose it” narrative really is; some lawyers in the thread call that an oversimplification.

Liability, disaster optics, and “disaster brand” concerns

• Several commenters note potential tort risk: if the site appears semi-official and is wrong, people might rely on it for safety decisions and sue.
• Others highlight economic risk: incorrect “closed” labels could directly cost stores revenue or create employee-management conflicts.
• Some argue Waffle House likely doesn’t want to be tightly tied to “national disasters” as a core brand message, despite the positive story of resiliency.

Scraping and data use

• People distinguish between (a) trademark issues and (b) scraping status data. Most think the C&D was about marks, but note the data source was later patched anyway.
• There’s discussion of ToS, scraping case law, and big scrapers (AI, adtech) as context; consensus is that scraping alone would have been a murkier, slower fight.

Alternatives and what could have been done

• Common suggestions:
  • Remove logo and WH-styled branding; use a generic name (“Waffle Index”, “disaster index”) and a clear “unofficial” disclaimer.
  • Aggregate multiple chains to dilute brand-specific issues.
• Some argue an individual developer is rational to comply fully: C&Ds are scary, lawyers are expensive, and low-probability IP lawsuits can still be ruinous.