Did you read closely in the story where the "rebranding" actually involved theft of material technology / code? Please explain how that is considered rebranding

Did you read closely in the story where the "rebranding" actually involved theft of material technology / code? Please explain how that is considered rebranding or anywhere NEAR the rights implied by the doctrine of first purchase in the US. You made a clear and coherent wrong observation and came out with a completely bass-ackwards conclusion.