I'm not convinced by your 1st citation. How does a private sale create a new obligation for Nikon, who was not involved in the transaction? And suppose the sale

I'm not convinced by your 1st citation. How does a private sale create a new obligation for Nikon, who was not involved in the transaction? And suppose the sale was intra-EU - am I to believe it is simply illegal to sell used goods in the EU if one is unable to provide warranty for them? Since every sale creates a new 1-year warranty obligation. Or conversely, that each subsequent sale creates a new 1-year warranty obligation for the manufacturer, that was not involved with the sale, regardless of how old the item is? And why would it be any of the manufacturer's business whether 2nd-hand sellers don't provide warranty? Since when are they in the business of privately enforcing consumer protections? Or legally compelled to do so. As for the trademark exhaustion, presumably it refers to my claim that the transaction is "perfectly legitimate", even over the trademark-holder's objection. I stand by "legitimate", but concede that it may not be "legal". However, it is hard for me to express how vile and disgusting such a law is, effectively allowing trade between countries only for corporations, and using trademarks to isolate consumers. As another comment stated, they want to take advantage of price differences for manufacturing, but then prevent consumers from using those differences when buying. Legal, but not remotely legitimate, and a clear sign of the capture of the legislature by corporate interests. And none of what you cited shows any kind of liability for a company arising from not policing their consumers.