Why aren&#39;t alcoholic extracts considered alcoholic beverages? Why are some alcoholic liquids allowed to be sold without restrictions, while others are taxed and illegal to sell or serve to anyone under the legal drinking age? Examples of "exempt" alcohol: Vanilla extract (typically 40% ABV) Bitters (often 45% ABV) Cough syrup (as much as 25% ABV) Mouth wash (upwards of 25% ABV) Cooking wine
The first tax on a domestic product by the U.S. government was on distilled alcohol (1791). Since then, alcohol production and sale has been aggressively regulated by the federal government, ostensibly (if nothing else) to ensure the integrity of this revenue stream. Today, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury maintains a rich and amusing tapestry of rules. A product is legally an alcoholic beverage if it contains at least 0.5% alcohol by volume and is fit for beverage purposes. TTB offers two different means of determining whether something is "fit for beverage purposes." Organoleptic Analysis: This is essentially a taste test by a panel of six people. If at least four agree that "the product has flavor qualities that would prevent the average person from mistaking it for an alcoholic beverage" then it is exempt from tax and regulation because it is "unfit for beverage purposes." Formulaic Fitness: A number of ingredients, when included in an alcoholic liquid in sufficient levels, render it unfit for beverage purposes (as far as the TTB is concerned).
In the Netherlands, this qualifies as a deceptive trade practice (misleidende handelspraktijk) and is therefore directly illegal. It's likely also an unfair trade practice, (oneerlijke handelspraktijk) as the claim appears intended for end consumers. This means that the seller cannot count on the consumer knowing anythong about stuffase. It is a dutch implementation of EU directive 2005/29/EG, so similar laws apply in other EU countries. But the illegal per se part might vary.
The problem with the proposal is that the Second Amendment doesn't specifically protect the right to bear guns – the word it uses is "arms". Restricting sale of bullets or gunpowder is just as much a restriction on the right to bear arms as restricting sale of guns. Likewise, freedom of the press doesn't refer to just the freedom to use a wine press for printing purposes, it also encompasses the purchase of ink, paper, type and drying racks.
I am answering primarily with regard to the U.S. Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq.) and state trademark laws in the U.S., but except as noted, these concepts are widely honored internationally in trademark law. As a general rule, generic names cannot be trademarked. Thus, you can't trademark "liquor store" for a liquor store, or "Calendar" for a calendar, but you might be able to trademark "liquor store' for a copying machine line, or "Calendar" for a perfume. Sometimes a trademark can be obtained for a stylized logo incorporating a generic name (e.g. "liquor store" in bold pink 48 point comic-sans), but to be valid, the trademark must disclaim any assertion of rights in the mere genetic words themselves. Also, sometimes a trademark that is descriptive but not truly generic, like "Palisade Red" for red wine made in Palisade, Colorado (as opposed to the truly generic name "red wine"), can acquire what is known as a "secondary meaning" through exclusive use over a period of time while registered with the Patent and Trademark Office, without contest from anyone else. If it meets these requirement it can win an entitlement to trademark protection. But, the nuances of this particular route to trademark protection are particular to U.S. Lanham Act (which is the name of the federal trademark law in the U.S.). Domain names and entity names in a particular jurisdiction are somewhat different. While it is possible for two competing products or firms to share a generic name, it is not possible for two owners to have precisely the same domain name or precisely the same entity name in the same jurisdiction, even if the firms seeking the same name sell completely dissimilar types of products. For example, there can only be one: "Calendar.com" domain name, even if one company uses the name "Calendar" to sell calendars and the other company uses the name "Calendar" to sell perfume. In those cases, however, it is relatively straightforward to determine what names are and are not taken.
Wikipedia is pretty comprehensive. As a general rule, the following types of airsoft guns are illegal in all states: Guns capable of fully automatic fire. Guns that outwardly resemble a sub-machine gun or machine pistol. In addition, specific states have further rules e.g. in NSW they are strictly prohibited, whereas in the NT they are otherwise allowed if you have the right licence. As to why, that is a question for politics stack exchange.
California Penal Code 647f states that being intoxicated in public is prohibited. When the police arrived, they were confronted with probable cause for an arrest. They (presumably) became aware of the matter because the doctor called the police, since she believe that you would drive drunk. (We can inquire into whether that was a reasonable belief, but it doesn't matter, what matters is that she had the belief and acted on it). Now the question is whether the doctor acting on the belief (making the call) was legal. A negative answer does not affect the legality of the arrest. There is also a law imposing on medical professionals a duty to report, which is fairly wordy, but does not seem to directly require reporting the fact that a person is publicly intoxicated. However, attending circumstances could have suggested one of the triggering causes for mandatory reporting (wounds, for example). Again, it does not matter (to a point) if, in the light of close scrutiny, the doctor's conclusions were mistaken. When doctors are required to report facts to the police, reasonable over-reporting is not penalized. There is also no law against calling 911 to report a potential DUI (the usual public-campaign focus is on those actually driving). So calling the police under the circumstances falls between "allowed" and "required". The HIPAA privacy rule could be relevant because that theoretically could block the doctor from making the call. (Note that the doctor, and not the patient, is bound by the confidentiality requirements). §160.203 allows exceptions to the confidentiality requirement if "necessary... For purposes of serving a compelling need related to public health, safety, or welfare", so an exception may have been granted. If this was done within the scope of a mandatory reporting law, it is legal to disclose PHI; under §164.512 it is allowed, "to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of a person or the public". A confidentiality agreement would not increase your chances of being arrested. If the doctor's confidentiality statement were less restrictive than HIPAA, HIPAA prevails (the law trumps contract terms). If it is the same as HIPAA, it has no effect (and simply states what HIPAA says – the normal case). If the agreement were more restrictive, it is possible that the doctor calling the police would be a breach of contract, unless the call was required by law. You would have to see what in the agreement would have prohibited calling the police. But that would not affect the validity of the arrest. To re-phrase the matter: the arrest was because you were found to be intoxicated in public. The police were there and could judge your state (probable cause). They were there by permission of the property owner, so the arrest was not unlawful for lack of a warrant. That is as far as one can go in searching for an illegality to the arrest itself. One might go further and ask whether the doctor has committed an actionable wrong by calling the police with her suspicions. This could go either way: it really depends on the full set of details, regarding your condition. If the doctor suspected that your actions fell under one of the mandatory reporting categories, she had to report, and otherwise it is not prohibited under HIPAA. If a person is intoxicated and answers the question "Would you normally proceed to drive home in this state?" in the affirmative, then it is a reasonable inference that the person will do so. An answer "No, absolutely not", on the other hand would work against the "public danger" inference: that has no effect on the arrest, but could have an effect in a suit against the doctor (violation of the privacy rule). In such a suit, the doctor's defense would presumably be that despite the answer, she still had a reasonable belief that you were a public danger. Then the matter would reduce to what other facts she knew of that would support a public danger conclusion.
Is this legal? Generally yes, unless it unlawfully exceeds the scope of the license. Also, if it is, how can I check if it's permitted by the original store's EULA? Read the whole EULA, focusing on terms related to resale, assignment, and transferability.
So I can block children under 13, but I can't tell them that? You can tell them after they fail, you cannot tell them on the asking screen. Then what is the correct way to block children under 13 to access my website and still comply with COPPA? I agree with you that it is odd that they recommend using a cookie but they do!* So you have a entry page with a simple question, "Please indicate your age" and then block based on the response. That's it. Note that the rule is neutral. This means that you do not need to disguise your purpose or try to trick people into entering their correct age. *I think that what is happening here is that any parent who wants to complain to their legislator can be met with the response, "If your kid is so sneaky that they are using different computers to lie about their age what do you want us to do about it?" The fact is, this scheme keeps innocent kids from seeing stuff they shouldn't; the sneaky ones are going to find a way.