Am I allowed to take money for cigarettes? If someone comes over to me asking to spare a cigarette and offers to pay for it, am I allowed to take the money? Is it considered selling tobacco without having the proper license?
21 CFR 1140.3 defines "distributor" as any person who furthers the distribution of a tobacco product, whether domestic or imported, at any point from the original place of manufacture to the person who sells or distributes the product to individuals for personal consumption. You thus legally qualify as a distributor. Under the definition of "retailer", you would also be one: any person who sells tobacco products to individuals for personal consumption As a retailer, you may not sell cigarettes to a minor (21 CFR 1140.14(a)(1)). Under 21 CFR 1140.14(a)(4), No retailer may break or otherwise open any cigarette or smokeless tobacco package to sell or distribute individual cigarettes or a number of unpackaged cigarettes that is smaller than the quantity in the minimum cigarette package size defined in § 1140.16(b), or any quantity of cigarette tobacco or smokeless tobacco that is smaller than the smallest package distributed by the manufacturer for individual consumer use; so if you sell cigarettes, it has to be a whole pack, which by law is 20 smokes. You also may not give the cigarettes away, pursuant to (d)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, no manufacturer, distributor, or retailer may distribute or cause to be distributed any free samples of cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, or other tobacco products where (d)(2) is about free samples of smokeless tobacco in a qualified adult-only facility. So putting it all together, giving away a cigarette is against the law, since the law was so written. Selling less than a pack is against the law. Under federal law, acquisition of cigarettes is unregulated, so these regulations go to the seller and distributor. Your state will also have its own rules about cigarettes which might prohibit the resale of whole packs without a license. Washington state for example requires a license to sell any form of tobacco, and there are various taxes on the sale of tobacco (RCW 82.24), but there is an obscure section that prohibits such resale. RCW 82.24.050(2) states that A retailer may obtain cigarettes only from a wholesaler subject to the provisions of this chapter and in case you thought you might not be a retailer, a retailer under Washington tobacco law is every person, other than a wholesaler, who purchases, sells, offers for sale or distributes any one or more of the articles taxed herein, irrespective of quantity or amount, or the number of sales, and all persons operating under a retailer's registration certificate I am not kidding. If you buy a pack of cigarettes, you are a retailer. This goes back at least to the 1935 laws (ch. 180 §83). Most likely they had in mind the context where a vendor purchases goods from a wholesaler and then re-sells them, but the definition as written would also classify ordinary consumers as "retailers".
The relevant legislation is found in sections 5361-5367 of the United States Code. The key prohibition is in section 5363. To fall within the scope of this prohibition, a person must: (1) be "in the business of betting or wagering" and (2) accept a payment in connection with the participation of another person in "unlawful Internet gambling". So you need to look at (1) what is betting or wagering and (2) what is unlawful Internet gambling. Both terms are defined in section 5362 and discussed on Wikipedia. Assuming that you are running a video game that is not a thin veneer over a casino, and the users are gambling in-game items that are not purchased with actual money, then you are unlikely to be found to be engaged in the business of betting or wagering, especially given the exclusion in section 5362(1)(E)(viii) for "participation in any game or contest in which participants do not stake or risk anything of value."
No. Money Laundering is the act of taking money that was made as a result of criminal activity and turning it into "clean" money. There are a number of ways this occurs, and there may be ways to do it with casino chips, but you haven't demonstrated that your money is "Dirty" to begin with. If you have a $100 dollar chip from a Vegas Casino, it means that the original casino where it was purchased will redeem it for $100 dollars in currency. Nevada is unique in the United States as Casinos operating in the state must honor chips between different casinos so it's possible to buy a Chip at Casino A, go to Casino B, and redeem the chip there. This allows Las Vegas to use them as a sort of alternative currency and so long as the person you are doing business with accepts it as a form of payment, you are allowed to use it same as cash. Collecting Casino chips is a hobby of some people and you can find them on places like Ebay, often times for more value than the face value of the chip. Like Currency, nothing says that you have to buy the chip at face value, so rare, old, or chips with defects may be worth many times over their current face value to the right collector. It would only be money laundering if that $100 dollars was obtained through illegal activity and you were using the chip as a way to gamble to make your legitimate earnings on tax reports. While you can launder any value of money, the people who do so are normally doing so with 10,000s of dollars (the value most banks will notify the government if deposited in a single transaction... and they will take notice if you're doing more frequent smaller transactions to avoid that detection). If you have ever seen "Breaking Bad" there are a few scenes where Money Laundering is explained, but the idea is to take a business that has a large use of hard currency exchange (Arcades, Nail Salons, and Car Washes are all discussed in show as perfect business examples) in which dirty money is mixed with legitimate earnings and deposited into the bank. As cash does not have a paper trail, you can't determine which bills were earned at the arcade verses through other means. As long as your bookie is legitimate, Sports Gambling is legal in Vegas (You can even bet the Superbowl Coin toss) and as long as you report it as taxable income, you're not committing any crimes.
Not only can’t you trademark it, you can’t use it The original logo is covered by copyright which belongs, prima facie, to the original artist. It doesn’t matter that they are based in Russia; Russia and the US are both signatories to the Berne Convention which means they protect each other’s copyright. That means you can only use it if it is fair use (it isn’t) or if you have the copyright owner’s permission (you don’t). Could I still use the logo I bought and trademark it in the US granted that the seller had made some revisions to the stock photo he found? Not if the seller didn’t have permission to make those changes. Creation of a derivative work is one of the exclusive rights copyright gives. The seller had changed up some parts of the stock image, this includes color scheme, orientation, and made the picture look a little low poly. See above. The original artist of the stock photo is based in Russia and as far as I can see there is no registered copyright on it and don't think they could apply for US copyright anyway. They already have copyright. They would need to register it in the US before they could sue but there is no impediment to them doing so. While I'm not sure where the seller (located in Pakistan) officially downloaded the logo, I had nothing to do with the final design of it or downloaded anything from a stock photo website myself, so I'm not sure if I'd be bounded by any terms of the stock photo website Makes no difference. Just because you didn’t steal the car, that doesn’t make it ok for you to drive it. The stock image is very niche and a bit random. Across all the websites the artist has published it on, it has about 5 or 6 downloads altogether. Not relevant at all. As far the copyright of the seller's work goes, the Fiverr terms state that buyers have all the copyright, though I don't know if this is nullified by the use of the stock image. You can’t sell something you don’t own. If the seller had no right to upload the photo (as it seems they didn’t), the terms of the website don’t matter. The true owner never agreed to those terms and isn’t bound by them.
Note: IANAL Does the placement of a sticker stating, "We accept XYZ credit cards," essentially obligate a business to accept that card? It depends on whether you mean whether they are obligated to provide goods/services to someone who presents the card, or whether, having provided goods/services, they are obligated to accept the card as payment. For the first question, the answer is "no". The credit card brand could theoretically go after them, however, as names of credit networks are trademarks, so claiming to accept a card but not doing so is trademark infringement. For the second, the answer is "pretty much". Since they misrepresented their establishment, there is no mutual assent and therefore no contract. If they try to use "defrauding the innkeeper statutes", those require fraudulent intent. If you fully intended to pay for you meal by a credit card, and it was their choice to refuse payment, then you have no fraudulent intent. The only avenue I can see for them is some sort of equity argument, but that would be problematic, especially if they ask for the retail, rather than wholesale, price, and not worth the hassle of collecting. So, legally, you can just walk out, but in practice if they have a bouncer they might make trouble for you.
The "Crabs" game can be legal if it is seen as a form of parody. That is one of the forms of "fair use" that allows copying (within limits). This is to allow the use of limited amounts of copying for critical or "mocking" pieces, which are considered a form of free speech. Two other issues come into play under "fair use." The first is whether or not this is "commercial" (yes) or non-commercial (e.g educational) use. That is mildly negative for "Crabs" but by no means dispositive. The second is the likely market impact, whether the new use tends to compete with the old use in its "home" market, or whether it is likely to open a new market of a very different, perhaps "opposite" audience that might later buy the original as a "crossover." The "Crabs" game seems to address the "green" or at least "pro animal" (PETA) market. If the defendant can show that the "Cards" market addresses e..g., your "inner Nazi," making it "opposite," that would be ideal. It would be less convincing if "Cards" were addressing e.g. human rights, because that might be seen to overlap with the green market in terms of social conscience.
Both the police and the courts are likely to look at the situation as a whole, rather than adopting any policy specifically in relation to drivers or owners. For example, it's unusual for people to rent cars to their friends for months on end. That might suggest there is something untoward about the arrangement. Is there evidence of the commercial arrangement, or is the owner pretending to have rented the car out for months, when in reality they had stashed the drugs then let a friend borrow the car for a day? It would also be unlikely for a drug dealer to stash a large amount of drugs in a car then lend the car out on a long-term basis, so if the car is out of the owner's hands, that would tend to suggest the drugs belong to the person in possession of the car (and not the owner). But if the amount of drugs were small, typical of personal use, then it becomes more credible to imagine they could be forgotten by the car owner before lending the car to a friend. Police intelligence might also have a bearing. Does one party or the other have known links to the drugs trade? Also, is the lifestyle of one or the other, in particular, inconsistent with known sources of legitimate income? My point with all these questions is to highlight how sensitive the issue is to the fine details of the circumstances, and that it's impossible to give a strictly general answer.
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.