How can Subway&#39;s and my local pizzeria legally use imperial-only units to sell their goods? UK and EU law state that products sold in the UK must be advertised in metric units (Wikipedia). However, Subway's sells sandwiches that are "footlong" or "six inches", and at least two pizzeras I have been also advertise their pizzas by diameter in inches (online example). Considering that traders have been prosecuted for not using the metric system, how can Subway's and pizzerias legally do so?
From the Wikipedia you linked: Goods and services sold by a description are not covered by weights and measures legislation; thus, a fence panel sold as "6 foot by 6 foot" is legal, as is a 6 x 4 inch photograph frame, but a pole sold with the price described as "50 pence per linear foot", with no accompanying metric price, would be illegal. In both cases the measurement is a description of the product, not a unit by which the consumer is charged.
I am not from Denver, so it may be different there, but I would think most people would take that to mean the appliance meets UL standards or other safety standards and has been certified. Each governing body, be it a town, county, state, or country, gets to decide who can certify an appliance.
It isn't obvious that one must be certified to advertise your product as "Kobe Beef" in the United States. The designation "Kobe Beef", in theory, is supposed to operate a lot like a trademark, but it is a geographic designation that presumably belongs to officials from the geographic area, rather than a true trademark that is owned by a private individual or corporation. It is one thing to state you have "certified Kobe Beef" when you don't and another to say merely that you have "Kobe Beef" in a place where no certification is required by law and the term is not well defined. The United States frequently does not honor foreign law procedures necessary to establish a geographic designation. As another example, the U.S. routinely tolerates the marketing of "champagne" in the sense of a generic term for sparkling wine, even though it is regulated as a geographic designation for sparkling wine made in a particular manner in a particular place within France when used in the European Union. The handful of geographic designations that are treated as enforceable under regimes like the ones for Kobe Beef and Champagne arise under U.S. specific laws. For example, federal law (strictly speaking a federal regulation promulgated pursuant to federal law) mandates that the term Bourbon whiskey refer to a product made at least 50% of distilled spirits made in a certain way in Kentucky. There are deceptive trade practices laws in many states that require designations of origin to be truthful and the Lanham Act also prohibits false advertising. But, to the extent that beef originates from the Kobe vicinity (i.e. Hyōgo Prefecture) in Japan but is not certified Kobe Beef under the Japanese geographic designation laws, this would not violate either of these laws because the geographic designation is accurate. Hyōgo Prefecture where certified Kobe Beef comes from is shown in red on this Wikipedia map. Alternatively, the sellers of Kobe Beef could argue, probably with a good chance of success, that in American English the term "Kobe Beef" refers not to "certified Kobe Beef" or even to beef actually produced in Hyōgo Prefecture, Japan as a geographic designation, but to beef with some important qualities of certified Kobe Beef, without regard to where it is actually made, for example, using the same breed of cow raised so that it has a similar level of fattiness. I would guess that hundreds of places in the U.S. sell "Kobe beef". In the same vein, "Kentucky Fried Chicken" does not mean chicken fried in Kentucky in American English, instead it means chicken fried in the style made famous in Kentucky, a Philadelphia Cheese Steak in American English means a sandwich made in the style of cheese steaks sold in Philadelphia and not a sandwich actually made in Philadelphia, and a Boston Cream Pie in American English means a cream pie made in the style of pies made in Boston and not a pie made with cream that is actually produced in Boston. U.S. law, in general, and American language conventions as well, are quite hostile to the notion that what other countries might consider a geographic designator does anything more than describe a style of making food as opposed to making a true statement regarding place of origin. In American English an unambiguous statement regarding place of origin would normally be made with a statement like "Made with beef imported from Kobe, Japan" as opposed to a mere product description of "Kobe Beef". The inference one makes that "Kobe Beef" is certified Kobe Beef from Kobe, Japan is probably an unreasonable assumption and certainly the question would be a disputed question of fact on falsity that a court could reasonably rule in favor of the restaurant upon. (Similarly, if you say you are headed to "my house" you aren't necessarily implying that I own the house, merely that it is associated with me in some way.) Also, to quantify damages, one would have to determine the difference between the fair market value of fine beef in a fancy restaurant that is not certified Kobe Beef and certified Kobe Beef as you would have to in order to prevail and win damages in a lawsuit like that one, is non-trivial and might determine that, for example, the alternative still charges $300, greatly reducing damages. And, the number of meals involved still probably isn't huge, perhaps in a thousand per year. So, maybe the damages if someone prevailed might be $150,000 for all meals sold in the period covered by the statute of limitations even if one could successfully prove that in a class action lawsuit. It is also possible that no one has decided to take any action to enforce what is a violation of the law, even to the extent that it is indeed a deceptive trade practice. It isn't economical to sue over a single $350 beef purchase, particularly when there are non-frivolous defenses of the type that I have identified. People who purchase this kind of meal aren't easy to identify in order to bring a class action that could lead to a more viable lawsuit, particular as the patrons might be spread all over the world. The New York State attorney general might decide that it has higher priorities than suing a business that is getting people to willingly and happily pay $350 for an entree at a single restaurant that mostly benefits the nine certified Kobe Beef restaurants. And those nine restaurants may likewise have decided that it wasn't worth suing under the Lanham Act because even if they prove false advertising which is causing patrons there to pay $50 more than they should per entree, it isn't at all obvious that this caused any damage to the restaurants in question that couldn't be solved with more advertising of their own.
The official Scottish government website, under the section headed Proof of identity uses the terms &quot;could&quot; and &quot;can&quot; which, in the UK, do not impose a statutory duty or obligation unlike &quot;must&quot;. It also confirms that: Landlords who rent properties to tenants in England and Wales must check that a tenant has a right to rent, and live, in the UK. You don't need to do this check in Scotland. (My emboldenment) So it seems there is no lawful reason to ask the question but asking, in and of itself, does not appear to be in breach of the Equality Act 2010. It is what the prospective landlord does with that information that may, or may not, make it so either by: s.13 Direct discrimination (1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others. ... (5)If the protected characteristic is race, less favourable treatment includes segregating B from others. ... Or s.19 Indirect discrimination (1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's. (2)For the purposes of subsection (1), a provision, criterion or practice is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's if— (a)A applies, or would apply, it to persons with whom B does not share the characteristic, (b)it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it, (c)it puts, or would put, B at that disadvantage, and (d)A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. (3)The relevant protected characteristics are— ... race ... For completeness and clarity: s.9 Race (1)Race includes— ... (b)nationality; (c)ethnic or national origins. ...
The example in the question is a pretty clear case of nominative use. The mark is being used to refer to, or name, the product (or service). It is not being used to sell a similar product, or anything else. No reasonable person could take it to indicate that the trademark owner has endorsed the person making the statement, nor that there is any sort of affiliation. This page from the International Trademark Association describes the concept. This concept is sometimes called "fair use" by analogy with the concept in US copyright law, but that term is not strictly accurate. It is better to simply say "nominative use" or "descriptive use". Digital Media Law's page on "Using the trademarks of others" says: As a general matter, if you are reporting on, commenting on, or criticizing a trademark owner, most ordinary consumers will not be confused about whether the company or organization is the source or sponsor of your work. You can reduce the likelihood of confusion further by avoiding a website design that looks like the trademark owner's site or resembles its product packaging, and you should never festoon your website with a company's logo (but isolated use when relevant to a discussion is OK) ... If someone threatens you with a lawsuit or sues you for trademark dilution, then a lack of consumer confusion will not help you. Here, one obvious line of defense is to argue that there is no likelihood of dilution. Federal and state dilution law protects a trademark owner against the whittling away of the distinctiveness of its famous trademark by association with other goods or services; it does not give a trademark owner the right to shut down all unflattering speech about it. If you do not associate a famous trademark with your own goods or services, then there can be no dilution (or at least that's how your argument goes). ... The nominative fair use defense protects your ability to use a trademark to refer to a trademark owner or its goods or services for purposes of reporting, commentary, criticism, and parody, as well as for comparative advertising. Courts impose three requirements on defendants who want to take advantage of the nominative fair use defense: (1) the trademark owner, product, or service in question must not be readily identifiable without use of the trademark; (2) the defendant must use only as much of the mark as is necessary to identify the trademark owner, product, or service; and (3) the defendant must do nothing that would suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. This defense works against trademark infringement lawsuits. The federal dilution statute, found at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A), also makes nominative fair use a complete defense to trademark dilution claims.
If they really ordered it, they entered into a contract, and you have a claim against them for damages suffered because the contract was breached. This would be a civil claim, not a criminal claim, in the Netherlands. However, if you're delivering an order that was sent anonymously, you have no way to prove that the person at the door is the one who ordered the food - and the onus would be on your to prove that it was. It could become a criminal act under a number of laws ("oplichting", "fraude", etc.) if intent can be proven but that's not easy - and you first have to get the police/public prosecutor interested in the case. It's quite comparable to someone ordering in a restaurant and not paying the bill, which is notoriously hard to prosecute criminally in the Netherlands. (Search for "eetpiraat" - dinner pirates) As a restaurant, you usually can only try to enforce a civil claim through the civil courts.
Trademarks apply only to a limited field. If you follow the link, it reports that it applies to class 42, graphic art design. So you are free to use (and register &quot;mama&quot; for your food delivery service, for example.
Short answer: It depends. It is lawful if one has a lawful reason, such as it's needed for work, or it's a folding pocketknife (e.g. a Swiss Army Knife) with a blade less than 3 inches. Long answer: The primary legislation is s.139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which makes it unlawful to have in a public place: (2) ... any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except a folding pocketknife. (3) .... [this includes] a folding pocketknife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 3 inches. Subsection (4) gives the &quot;good reason or lawful authority&quot; general defence for possessing such an article which is complemented and supplemented by: (5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him— (a)for use at work; (b)for religious reasons; or (c)as part of any national costume. This site gives some more information and identifies certain knives that are banned, and this site, under &quot;legislation&quot;, lists semi-related offences. .