6

The legal term for this sort of thing is puffery: a statement that is obviously exaggerated and which no reasonable person would take literally. According to the US Federal Trade Commission, puffery is [a] term frequently used to denote the exaggerations reasonably to be expected of a seller as to the degree of quality of his product, the truth or ...


5

If you are Donald Trump posting under an assumed name then it is illegal, because he is currently president of the USA and not supposed to run any businesses. If you are not Donald Trump, then be aware that Donald Trump owns a trademark for "Donald Trump" according to this site https://onlinetrademarkattorneys.com/donald-trump-trademarks/ so you will be ...


5

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 ...


5

As a preliminary matter: there is no, so far as I'm aware, a blanket FTC requirement that every ad carry a disclaimer or a label. Some FTC rules do require disclaimers in certain circumstances. This document gives some background. In summary: if a claim made in an ad is false, a disclaimer can't fix it. If it is true, a disclaimer is unnecessary. A ...


4

It is capitalized because the word NEXIUM has a conspicuous definition. In other words, they're using it in the specific way they have defined it to mean. This is to differentiate it from any other meaning it may have in some other context. Obviously with NEXIUM, it's a word they just made up and it's very unlikely that it could ever be confused with ...


4

Any quick minded Dunkin' Donut's lawyer will point out that their is a Dunkin' Donunts in office building for the House of Representatives, which is quite popular with the Members and their staff and a great many deals over legislative voting occur at this location, so there could be a claim to this statement, from a certain point of view. Dunkin' Donuts is ...


3

The standard for fair use of trademarks is as follows: (1) the product or service in question is not readily identifiable without use of the trademark (2) only so much of the mark as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service is used (3) use of the mark does not suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. I think you might ...


2

From the USPTO, by law, a patent is: the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention in the United States or importing the invention into the United States. If you want to make, use, or sell something covered by an active patent then you have to secure the patent owner's approval or else they can use the ...


2

Copyright is not an issue; trademark is. Arwen is quite likely a trademark of Tolkien Enterprises, registered or not. Your proposed use which is to specifically involve the allure of the brand would breach the trademark.


2

The US Copyright Office does not recognize copyright in titles: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.pdf


2

If you advertise that various well-known firms are clients of yours, when this is in fact a lie, this is a form of false advertising. If other clients or potential clients reasonably rely on those false statements and suffer harm by doing so, it might also be a form of fraud. Most jurisdictions have some form of government sanctions on false advertising, ...


2

It is an infringement of trademark to "pass off" something as by designer or maker X, when it is not in fact by X. Although by notifying the purchaser you are not actually claiming that the modified garment is by the maker whose tag you have added, it is hard to see any legitimate reason for doing this. You may be inviting your purchaser to pass off these ...


2

There are quite a few misunderstandings in your question. First, company logos and names are protected by trademark, not copyright. The goals of trademark protections are very different from those of copyright, with the main purpose being to prevent confusion about the source of goods or services. Second, using the name or logo of a company is not ...


1

This would seem to be a trademark issue. The key question is whether a reasonable person, seeing the ads, would believe that your brad was endorsed or was in fact being used byt these "famous brands" or their makers. That is a verfy fact-driven question. A sufficiently prominent statement can, in some cases, make it clear to a reasonable reader/viewer ...


1

If you do so, it is important to make very clear in conspicuous text that the trademarks are used without the permission of the owners and do not constitute an endorsement of your product by any of those companies. Also, while it is probably legal to do so if you do that, the common practice would be to not identify brands that have not endorsed your ...


1

Yes you can - identifying specific products is what trademarks are for.


1

Since it is the brochure of another company: You can always ask that company "My client, so-and-so, asked me to create a brochure by taking yours and replacing your company logo with his own. Do you have any problems with that?" What answer do you expect? What do you think your client will say about it? You know it's copyright infringement. You know who ...


1

Juristiction has alot to do with this - some countries might say you are infringing, some not. The law for the most part is there to prevent ill intent - thus, so long as you don't market yourself, your business or your product as having a special relationship with Apple (or whoever) then photo usage could be considered acceptable under fair use. If your ...


1

If I recall correctly, trademark laws are sort of case by case. The general rule is, if there is a chance people will be confused about which product they're getting, you're infringing on their trademark. The legal guideline takes several things into consideration, including the things you listed above: A trademark claim is stronger the closer the products ...


1

I wouldn't be surprised if Nike sent a cease-and-desist letter in response to its name appearing in a video game, but that doesn't actually mean anyone's done anything wrong; it just means that Nike is policing its trademark to avoid losing trademark protection. There's an eight-part test for trademark infringement, but I don't think you really need to get ...


1

Trademarks apply to the specific field of business. There are plenty of identically-named companies in different markets. As such, Nike (the sportswear company) can only enforce its trademark in sportswear and similar markets. If you'd create a Nike company that makes railroad equipment, that's sufficiently distinct. And that's talking about real companies. ...


1

Everything you describe as your "brand" is property: copyright in a logo and trademark in the name are known as "intellectual property." A domain name is also property. If you are the legitimate owner of property, then you can generally transfer (or license) rights to that property to another entity – a real person, or a corporation. However, if another ...


1

As a general rule, clothing designs cannot be copyrighted, but particular designs that are subcomponents of a design (e.g. a painting on the back of a T-shirt) could be copyrighted. The image of the clothing brand is a trademark. Contrary to common belief, it is not infringing to have an image with a trademark that you don't own on it. What is infringing is ...


1

Rather than saying "for Project®" which might fairly be interpreted to indicate an affiliation with Microsoft, you ought to say something like "intended to be compatible with Project® (not affiliated with or endorsed by Microsoft)." can you imagine a worse scenario than Microsoft sending a Cease and Desist notice? In that case, I can imagine re-branding ...


1

Don't do this - the trademark (if it is a trademark) already exists and is owned by the business. Just bring a case for your half of the business. Hire a lawyer first.


1

The standard for trademark registration is distinctiveness. Is the mark distinctive with respect to the source or producer of the goods or services? Proposed marks that already have a meaning fall into three categories: marks that are arbitrary ("APPLE", for computers) or suggestive ("DROPBOX", for the cloud storage service) marks that are merely ...


1

The thing your example seems to miss is that trademark protection does not prevent other people from using the trademark for any purpose whatsoever; it only concerns the use of the trademark for the purpose of selling a particular product or service. A movie studio can call their movie Always because they're not selling feminine hygiene products. Indeed, ...


1

Are you charging people money for enrolling in these odd courses? Are you claiming to grant degrees or certificates or claiming accreditation? If "no" to both you're in a much better position. Do you have some clear disclosure somewhere that it's fictional? Your last clause indicates yes, and this will help reduce the criticism you fear. Check out ...


1

Probably not. A trade mark exists to identify the goods and services provided by the business that owns the trade mark and infringement occurs when you use it is such a way to cause confusion that your goods and services are their goods and services. A website to sell second-hand Toyota's (say) does not cause such confusion - the brand identifies their ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible