Can Hilton claim that they invented the chocolate brownie? Recently on Good Morning Amercia, Hilton's CEO Chris Nassetta appeared to talk about Hilton's 100th Anniversary. It was discussed, amongst other things, how Hilton has had many 'firsts', including first hotel room TV, first room service, first piña colada etc. One of the things Nassetta claimed Hilton invented is the chocolate brownie - first baked by one of the chefs at Chicago's Palmer House Hilton. Looking at the wikipedia page for the Chocolate Brownie, this seems to check out: "Bertha Palmer, a prominent Chicago socialite whose husband owned the Palmer House Hotel. In 1893 Palmer asked a pastry chef for a dessert suitable for ladies attending the Chicago World's Columbian Exposition. She requested a cake-like confection smaller than a piece of cake that could be included in boxed lunches. The result was the Palmer House Brownie with walnuts and an apricot glaze." However, a quick read of the Wikipedia page for the hotel, we find that this Hotel did not become part of the Hilton chain until 1945, 52 years after the brownie was invented. "In December 1945, Conrad Hilton bought the Palmer House for $20 million and it was thereafter known as The Palmer House Hilton. In 2005, Hilton sold the property to Thor Equities, but it remains part of the Hilton chain." My question is: Is it legal for a company to claim ownership of a product if they buy the place in which it was created?
In the US, in general anyone can claim anything. Others are free to believe or disbelieve the claim. In theory, a person might base their decision to do business with Hilton partly on this particular claim (this is why some software companies start presentations about their new features with a Safe Harbor statement letting the audience know not to base purchasing decisions on unreleased features), and in that case they could argue that Hilton's claim damaged them by causing them to enter into a contract under false pretenses. I doubt such a case would be meritorious, but there could be some contrived situation where the point of whether Hilton owned the hotel when it invented the brownie was actually important.
If it’s your pizza, yes The civil equivalent of theft is the tort of conversion, “consisting of &quot;taking with the intent of exercising over the chattel an ownership inconsistent with the real owner's right of possession&quot;. In England &amp; Wales, it is a tort of strict liability.”
Yes, it is legal to sell something that uses another product as one of its ingredients. And yes, you can include the name of the product in the ingredients list. That said, if you do it and are successful enough you will probably get a cease and desist letter! The Supreme Court held a long time ago in Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty that a buyer can purchase a trademarked good, repackage it, and then resell it. The defendant of course by virtue of its ownership had a right to compound or change what it bought, to divide either the original or the modified product, and to sell it so divided. The court reminds us that trademarks are not copyrights; they not confer a right to prohibit the use of a word or words. ...unquestionably the defendant has a right to communicate... that the trade-marked product is a constituent in the article now offered as new and changed. In this case the name of the original product was included on the package in non-distinct lettering; stating that the original product was contained in the new product. I mention this because the ultimate decision is fact-specific.* So the Supreme Court tells us that we can repackage trademarked goods. The court also tells us a bit about the label - we cannot call out the trademarked name as this might confuse consumers: If the [trademarked name] were allowed to be printed in different letters from the rest of the inscription dictated by the District Court a casual purchaser might look no further and might be deceived. So, what about that FDA, what do we need on the label? You find this answer in 21 CFR 101.4(b)(2). (b) The name of an ingredient shall be a specific name and not a collective (generic) name, except that: (1) Spices, flavorings, colorings and chemical preservatives shall be declared according to the provisions of §101.22. (2) An ingredient which itself contains two or more ingredients and which has an established common or usual name, conforms to a standard established pursuant to the Meat Inspection or Poultry Products Inspection Acts by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or conforms to a definition and standard of identity established pursuant to section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, shall be designated in the statement of ingredients on the label of such food by either of the following alternatives: (i) By declaring the established common or usual name of the ingredient followed by a parenthetical listing of all ingredients contained therein in descending order of predominance except that, if the ingredient is a food subject to a definition and standard of identity established in subchapter B of this chapter that has specific labeling provisions for optional ingredients, optional ingredients may be declared within the parenthetical listing in accordance with those provisions. (ii) By incorporating into the statement of ingredients in descending order of predominance in the finished food, the common or usual name of every component of the ingredient without listing the ingredient itself. Here is an example of (i): But also note the picture of the box. That Hershey's Kisses trademarked image indicates that there is an agreement between the companies. So only use this image as an example of 21 CFR 101.4(b)(2)(i) ingredients labeling - the box cover is not an example of nominative use. *This is nominative fair use and has been discussed in other questions on this site. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc.: one party may use or refer to the trademark of another if 1) The product or service cannot be readily identified without using the trademark; 2) The user only uses as much of the mark as is necessary for the identification; 3) The user does nothing to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder.
Finding S seems to be hard and I have not much hope, if her siblings cannot provide any information. I think the "inhabitants registry" (Einwohnermeldeamt) is not allowed to give you her first address in Spain ("Zuzugsanschrift im Ausland") (§§ 44 and 45 Bundesmeldegesetz (BMG)). The best option I see is a court auction (Zwangsversteigerung), more precise a "Teilungsversteigerung". If one of S's siblings want money for the land, he can ask for a court auction at the local court (Amtsgericht). The court will get S's first address in Spain (§ 34 BMG) and if it cannot deliver its letter to S, there will be a "public delivery" (öffentliche Zustellung) through a posting in court. It would take a while, but in the end the land could be yours. Be prepared that the cost for the court auction will be much higher than the 1000€. If you plan to take this way, ask a lawyer for detailed advice. Also you need one of S's siblings to participate in the process. If the trees are really a danger for your house, the heirs could also have an obligation to remove them. Maybe this could help you too.
That depends on how you get the ingredient list. If the list is published and not protected by a patent, then anyone is free to use it in making the same or a similar product. If the product is patented and the ingredient list is covered by the patent, and the patent is currently in force, then making a similar product would probably be patent infringement, and the patent holder could sue and collect damages. If the list is secret, and has been protected as a Trade Secret, and if the would-be imitator gets the formula improperly, then the owner of the formula would have valid grounds for a trade secret lawsuit and to collect damages in that suit. Improper means would include breaking into the owner's files, or inducing an employee or contractor to violate a confidentiality agreement. But analyzing the product and figuring out its composition, a form of reverse engineering would be perfectly proper, and would give the formula owner no claim. Similarly, if the owner was careless and allowed the formula to be disclosed, the imitator would have done nothing improper. So the outcome depends on the details of facts not stated in the question.
Once you have left the hair on the hairdresser's floor, it is no longer your property. They can do what they like with it. In your first two scenarios, you are doing nothing to modify the assumption that you have discarded the hair - you're just letting the hairdresser deal with it. In the third scenario, you are asserting that the hair is still yours; you could gather it up. Similarly, if you had left an empty soda can on a cafe table, the cafe is entitled to assume that you don't want it any longer. They could put it in the recycling bin, or make it into a delightful sculpture, or whatever. If you stop them clearing the table, and say &quot;actually, I'd like to keep that can&quot; - then it's still yours. If you abandon it and walk away, it's not yours. The interpretation of whether you have &quot;discarded&quot; the thing is contextual. There are several possible legal theories about exactly what is going on when you leave objects lying around and wander away. These include the classical Roman view of res derelictae, that the thing becomes ownerless as soon as you physically abandon it with the intention of doing so - and conversely, views such as that of Sir Frederick Pollock, who considered it a &quot;high, grave and dubious question&quot; whether something stops being your property even after you throw it away while declaring that you want to get rid of it. But Pollock would allow that you had transferred ownership of the cut hair to the hairdresser, if only by silently acquiescing to them sweeping it up, rather than because they had claimed an ownerless substance. Either way, the hair is no longer your own, and once it is not yours its fate is not your concern. If you had some agreement with the hairdresser about what would happen, that's another matter, but the default position is that once the hair is theirs, they get to decide what happens with it. The late astronaut Neil Armstrong found out his barber was selling his cut hair as souvenirs. The letter from his lawyer asks for the return of the hair, or payment of a charitable donation, on the special basis of an Ohio law protecting celebrity rights in their 'persona'. It does not assert that Armstrong had any continued property right in the hair itself. The hair samples are still for sale, by the way. Even though your cut hair came from your body, it is not a human tissue to which special rules may apply. Hair is made of keratin and is not cellular, so nothing in the European Tissues and Cells Directive, applicable to Slovakia as an EU member, will kick in regarding your consent. Equally, this is surely not a &quot;wrongful taking of organs, tissues [or] cells&quot; under the Slovakian Criminal Code, sections 159-160. You may feel attached to it, in a continuing emotional sense, despite the result of the scissors: but it is not treated as specially as your actual flesh in terms of consent to what happens after it's removed. Also in EU law, the Waste Framework Directive covers &quot;waste&quot;, by definition, &quot;any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard&quot;. Although there is no coding in the European Waste Catalogue for human hair, it's classed as B3070 in the Basel Convention, an example of a B3 non-hazardous organic waste; Slovakia is one of the parties to this agreement. The substance of the Directive, as implemented in local law, would affect the onward destiny of the hair - such as which bin the hairdresser could put it in for collection, how it may be recycled into another product, or treated as a by-product instead of waste as such. There is a large and confusing case law about all that. Thankfully for you, it is the hairdresser who would have to deal with the implications.
No It's a trade secret owned by FICO, formerly Fair, Isaac and Company (1956-2003) and Fair Isaac Corporation (2003-2009). As a trade secret, it is protected and breaches of the secrecy carry criminal and civil punishments. Btw: Releasing the formula would invalidate all scores based on it, as it would open doors to manipulate the own score.
If the question is: "Did she call you and talk about two business contracts? " then this is not hearsay. We have a witness, standing in court, saying that exactly these things happened - that she called, and that she talked about those deals. If the question is: "Did the company sign two business deals that day? " then it is hearsay. We know that she said two deals were signed, because we have a witness for that, but that doesn't mean she said the truth. She could have lied about that. We don't have a witness standing in court saying that the deals were signed. We have a witness in court saying that he heard someone say the deals were signed. In a libel case where Jim sues Joe for libel, a witness says "Joe told me that Jim is a lying thief". That's absolutely not hearsay in a libel case about Joe spreading false rumours. The exact same statement by the exact same witness would be hearsay if someone tried to convict Jim for theft.