4 ms·
No, the seller does not have any of those rights. It's called the first-sale doctrine.
by guelo 9y ago
No, the seller does not have any of those rights. It's called the first-sale doctrine.
- Paul-ish 9y agoFirst-sale doctrine applies to copyrighted works. Deed restrictions are an example where someone can sell property with conditions on its use.
- otterley 9y agoReal estate is the only type of property I'm aware of that allows the owner to enter into covenants that "run with the property." As of yet, I haven't heard about any exceptions. Software licensors have tried, but so far haven't been successful AFAIK.
- guelo 9y agoThe Supreme Court reinforced these doctrines just a week ago (in a patent case, but the same principles apply), ruling against Lexmark printer cartridge restrictions "that a patentee’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, regardless of any restrictions the patentee purports to impose."
- guelo 9y agoFirst-sale doctrine also applies to trademarks which is what would be at issue here. The doctrine allows reselling of trademarked products.
- will_brown 9y agoJust so we are on the same page first-sale doctrine applies to works with copyright (i.e. You buy my book you have a right to resell or display it) it does not apply to consumable goods/food stuffs. Almost any reasonable person can understand practical limits of resale rights: think reselling your prescription opiates claiming first-sale doctrine. And no just because Trader Joe's products have TJ trademarks does not mean they are covered by first-sale doctrine, they are still food stuffs. Trademark under first sale-doctrine is more applicable to reselling a professional sports jersey containing the trademark logo/colors of the team.
- guelo 9y agoThe first-sale doctrine does not include an exception for food. Reselling your prescription opiates is prohibited by specific laws. No such law exists for food.
- Retric 9y agoFirst-sale doctrine is not limited to works of copyright. That's just what's most in the news. Patented inventions for example can be resold or even incorporated into other devices which are then sold and you don't get to control such things.
- milesvp 9y agoThis is false. The first sale doctrine can be summarized as, once I have physical possession of an item I can resell it. Do not confuse issues around distributorships, which are contracts that say, I will agree to sell you these goods at wholesale prices so long as you agree not to sell them anywhere I say you can't. Your example with reselling prescription opiates, is that opiates are a controlled substance, food is not. Trademark would only be a problem here if what Pirate Joes was selling was counterfeit Trader Joe's goods. Pirate Joes' core business was perfectly legal in the US. The only way trademark could be a problem is that Pirate Joes might be ruled too close to Trader Joes, and that's the trademark of the business, not the trademark of the items for sale in the store.
- will_brown 9y ago>Trademark would only be a problem here if what Pirate Joes was selling was counterfeit Trader Joe's goods. That is wrong, according to the case law. Facts here are very different bc TJ product is backed by the TJ guarantee; therefore, although identical TJ product when PJ sells it, it is "materially different" because PJ doesn't back the TJ product. That material change is a trademark violation, especially where PJ is advertising they buy/resell TJ product (impossible and confusing to customers). Simply look up the case law when first sale doctrine does not apply as a result of material changes to the product because the change in warranty/customer service inherently tied to the product/brand.