What is the purpose of including the statement &quot;All trademarks are property of their respective owners&quot;? I see this phrase everywhere. Isn't it a pointless statement? Is it not equivalent to "Trademarks are owned by their owners"?
The purpose of such a statement is to disavow the reading of any impression that the person making the statement is affiliated with the trademark owner, because the gravamen of a trademark infringement suit is that the person using the trademark mislead a consumer into thinking that the person using the trademark was endorsed by or affiliated with the trademark owner.
Trademark symbols Such symbols and notices were never required. Many company lawyers thought that they helped make a stronger case for infringement actions if someone did infringe. And perhaps also that they would deter people from using the trademarks without approval, perhaps even in ways that were legal but that the company did not like. (Companies routinely claim more trademark protection than the law allows.) Added, legal and source citations [15 U.S. Code § 1111] provides](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1111): Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1072 of this title, a registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, may give notice that his mark is registered by displaying with the mark the words “Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office” or “Reg. U.S. Pat. &amp; Tm. Off.” or the letter R enclosed within a circle, thus ®; and in any suit for infringement under this chapter by such a registrant failing to give such notice of registration, no profits and no damages shall be recovered under the provisions of this chapter unless the defendant had actual notice of the registration. emphasis added This section was last revised in 1988, and dates originally from 1946 The US patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) publication Basic Facts About Trademarks (PDF) says (on page 9): Each time you use your mark, it is best to use a designation with it. If registered, use an ® after the mark. If not yet registered, use TM for goods or SM for services, to indicate that you have adopted this as a trademark or service mark, respectively, regardless of whether you have filed an application with the USPTO. You may only use the registration symbol with the mark on or in connection with the goods/services listed in the federal trademark registration. However, no specific requirements exist as to the precise use of the “®” symbol as to placement, e.g., whether used in a subscript or superscript manner. emphasis added Added Analysis I cannot find any provision of US law requiring use of the ® symbol or any of its equivalents. However failure to use it may reduce the damages available in the case of infringement. I cannot find any provision of US law authorizing or requiring the use of the tm symbol. It appears to be a matter of common law, that is judge-made law, and a reference to court cases would be needed. There have been significant developments in US trademark law in recent years, but mostly in the degree to which First Amendment concerns are being held to limit tr4ademark protections. I found no change in regard to the symbols, their use, meaning or effect. Many countries, unlike the US, do not grant protection to trademarks unless they are registered, so the tm symbol is largely a US usage. What Changed? To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in US law on this issue in recent years. I see lots of tm and ® symbols on everyday products. I just looked at the power supply for my laptop and it has a tm after the maker's name. I just looked at a candy bar wrapper and it carries an ®. If there WAS a recent court case that changed the practice or influenced a change I haven't heard of it, and I've done some reading in recent major trademark cases. But I am not a lawyer, much less an IP lawyer, so I can't be sure. Another possibility is that the comparatively large symbol adjacent to the large logo on the front of the package was removed, and a smaller logo, with symbol, was placed on the back of the package. That would probably give legal notice to any would-be infringer.
It may be useful to draw a distinction between the NFT and the Art referenced by this NFT. There is no intellectual property in an NFT itself because an NFT is not a creative work, invention, or trade secret. Ownership of the NFT. As far as I'm aware, no laws recognize the Ethereum blockchain as an arbiter of ownership. However, NFTs and other “crypto” assets seem to be recognized as property. Thus, it can be the case that lawful ownership diverges from the ownership records on the blockchain. In the referenced scenario, someone gained control over an NFT but likely did not receive the property rights in that NFT (i.e. stole it). License to use the Art. The “Bored Ape Yacht Club” terms define ownership of the NFT purely in terms of the Ethereum blockchain, and ignore legal ownership: Ownership of the NFT is mediated entirely by the Smart Contract and the Ethereum Network The blockchain-owner of the NFT is then granted a license to use the Art via these terms. This leads to the following conclusions: There are no intellectual property rights in the NFT. Any intellectual property rights in the Art are held by Yuga Labs LLC, the company behind the “Bored Ape Yacht Club”. Nothing in the terms transfers ownership in the Art. Yuga Labs LLC grants the blockchain-owner of the NFT a license to use the Art. Here, this means that the thief held the license, then after the sale the subsequent buyer. Yuga Labs LLC does not grant the legal owner of the NFT any rights, in case the legal owner and the blockchain-owner are distinct. Of course, nothing would prevent Yuga Labs LLC from also granting a license to the legal owner of the LLC. They can still do so retroactively, as their license grant to the blockchain-owner is probably not exclusive. But I would be surprised if they would do so, since it would shatter the “NFT = Art” and “Blockchain = Ownership” illusion that their business model relies on.
This sounds like legal nominative use to me. The issue is trademark. Trademark law isn't a monopoly on using the trademark, it is a prohibition on using the trademark in a way that misleads a customer about who is selling something or what is being sold. You cannot sell goods in a manner that implies inaccurately an affiliation or endorsement of a trademark owner, causing confusion in the mind of a reasonable consumer. But, it sounds like your disclosure makes a factually accurate statement without implying or stating that the goods are sold with the affiliation or endorsement of Kodak, only that you used their goods as parts in your product. To be safe, in order to be completely clear and avoid all doubt, you might want to say, in addition, &quot;This produce is not licensed or authorized by Kodak.&quot; The First Sale rule expressly protects your right to resell physical good protected by trademark or copyright to someone else, so the sale itself is not illegal, it is just a question of whether you have abridged its trademark. Conceptually, what you are doing isn't that different from stating that the used car you are selling had all replacement parts obtained to maintain and repair it done with dealer approved parts, rather than third-party knock offs, which would likewise be legal. Similarly, you could sell a house with a listing that identifies the brand of every building material used. For example, &quot;this house was constructed using Pella Windows.&quot;
Assuming Chegg own the copyright, then they can restrict the activities that copyright protects The statement you quote is no more or less than the rights granted to them by copyright law. Basically, it's their stuff, they get to decide how you can use it. However, that does not necessarily mean that the uses that you have nominated are prohibited. For that, we would have to look at the specific fair use or fair dealing exemptions to copyright protection where you are. It's likely that both of your usage scenarios would meet fair use and probably fair dealing (which is harder to meet). You may also find that, buried somewhere in those massive terms of use, is something that deals with this directly.
Yes, they are. A business can decide not to do business with someone for pretty much any reason. The obvious prohibited reason is due to your race. But I don't see how eBay would even know your race. Some State laws might protect you, but I don't think there's any that applies in this case. For example, California might give you a means of appeal if someone stole your identity and they performed those transactions, not you. But I don't know of any Federal or State law that would change the very, very basic principle of law that a property owner gets to decide who can and cannot access their property. eBay owns eBay. One key benefit of ownership is precisely that you can make decisions that other people consider to be unfair, discriminatory (other than the specifically prohibited categories) and draconian. Other people don't have to agree with your decisions for them to be lawful.
The entire purpose of the Entire Agreement clause is to say that this contract is the agreement, and anything previously negotiated is not part of the agreement. I don't know why they would fail to include that in the contract.
In your example is the spare part the subject of a design patent? I assume it is not. When you combine the spare part to create a “different product” does the finished product resemble the drawings in the design patent? If, in its intended use, the final thing is close enough to the design patent to fall within its scope then you might by indirectly infringing by inducing people to infringe. The scope of a design patent is very difficult to determine reliably. This has nothing to do with how you got the components of your product, just how the completed thing looks. Copyright does not cover products (unless it is a model of a building or a statue or mold for a statue).