61–70 of 141 posts
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Third party screens with genuine Apple cables and logos? Why should CBP treat that differently? Because reselling a genuine cable is completely legal even if you attach it to a third-party screen. Swapping logos is not comparable because the cable provides a genuine function completely unrelated to the logo that happens to be printed on it. > How does CBP know you aren’t going to sell them as genuine parts? That is…
> Because reselling a genuine cable is completely legal even if you attach it to a third-party screen. Swapping logos is not comparable because the cable provides a genuine function completely unrelated to the logo that happens to be printed on it. Seems like a plausible test but it's easy to poke holes in it. What if I get some shoe laces with a pattern of the Louis Vuitton logo and put them in generic shoes?
You are right, its definitely not sufficient and from what I can tell legally, the main test in the cases we have been talking about is whether or not its likely to confuse consumers.
So in the case of the screens, the fact that it is a tiny logo on a functional internal component that the consumer won't see strongly indicates there is little intent or risk of consumer confusion.
In the case of the shoes, there is risk of confusion. Its possible that it could be made legal if sold as "Sketcher's Shoe with Custom Louis Vuitton laces" as that would mitigate the risk of confusion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not like what is happening here. In your hypothetical situation, you are selling bags featuring the Chanel brand. In the first situation from the article, the products seized by the CBP only included Apple branding on internal components which were created by Apple and not modified. In the second situation from the article, the products did not feature any Apple branding at all. They were clearly branded as On…
In the first situation from the article, it explicitly states briefly that they are “hybrid” parts: > The screens that were seized are “hybrid” parts: the screens are third-party, but use a few original Apple parts like a flex cable that connects the screen to the phone. That invisible, internal part is marked with an Apple logo, which is enough to let the CBP seize the entire shipment. Which brings up my Chanel hand…
As explaine by the article, counterfeiting involves pretending to be a product it's not. For example, if you sell your hypothetical channel bags as genuine channel bags instead of as generic, no-brand bags, then that would be counterfeiting because you're pretending they're something that it's not. Using genuine apple parts in third-party screens is more comparable to putting channel bag straps (which, yes, have the channel logo on them) into fake bags and selling them as generic, non-channel bags. Similarly, if you don't label the third party screen as "genuine apple", you're not infringing copyright.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not like what is happening here. In your hypothetical situation, you are selling bags featuring the Chanel brand. In the first situation from the article, the products seized by the CBP only included Apple branding on internal components which were created by Apple and not modified. In the second situation from the article, the products did not feature any Apple branding at all. They were clearly branded as On…
In the first situation from the article, it explicitly states briefly that they are “hybrid” parts: > The screens that were seized are “hybrid” parts: the screens are third-party, but use a few original Apple parts like a flex cable that connects the screen to the phone. That invisible, internal part is marked with an Apple logo, which is enough to let the CBP seize the entire shipment. Which brings up my Chanel hand…
If Chanel brought their case, they would win. If Apple brought theirs, they would lose.
But it appears they don't have to bring a case at all. Your thought experiment won't be considered. Lucky them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm still not why "original Apple parts" mean anything special?
Parts produced by Apple are allowed to have Apple's trademark on them. That's pretty much the reason trademarks exist. In the same way, only original Honda parts are allowed to have the Honda trademark on it. Of course in the case of Apple's customs bullying, hardware is being stolen because it's composed of a mixture of Apple parts and non-Apple parts. Like seizing an aftermarket car door because you put a Honda win…
There you have it. They had the logo on it. They were original.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is not Apple "exploiting" the legal framework but more optimizing how they use their capital to make the best of it. Using a legal framework designed to stop counterfeiting to stop shipments of things that aren't counterfeits (or even illegal at all) is absolutely exploiting it. > for which counterfeits and aftermarket replacements are very much desired. Only one of which CBP is tasked with stopping.
Here’s a thought experiment for why, I think, it’s actually very hard to make the case against CBP’s behavior. Imagine if I come into the possession of 80 severely damaged Chanel handbags for super cheap. They’re basically shedded, but they have intact branding. I go to China and get 80 replicas. Then, I carefully cut the genuine logo, off the ruined handbags, and sew it onto the replicas. Have I committed counterfei…
> Have I committed counterfeiting?
Not if this logo was hidden deep inside, and not advertised!
But this is more like selling an unaltered Chanel bag in a bundle with something else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's digital and involved copyright though. If I go pry the OEM badge off a Ford car and try to re-sell it... it doesn't matter that its a Ford part or that Ford doesn't sell it to the public (only with a car, might be wrong here, but go with me)
It's digital /now/ but Nintendo also used the design of their logo embossed on FDS disks as a (very) primitive form of DRM (there was a corresponding piece of plastic in the drive that would only sit flush if the disk had the right cutouts).
[flagged]
In one sense I'm not surprised that the general reaction seems to be "shrug ". This is a story about Apple being Apple, and Border Control being, well Border Control. Both organisations have a well-deserved reputation. Both are behaving completely in character. That the biggest company can pay to enlist the support of the most-insulated police force surprises no-one. Perhaps more depressing is that there's no expecta…