> Swapping logos is not comparable because the cable provides a genuine function completely unrelated to the logo that happens to be printed on it. Not necessa

> Swapping logos is not comparable because the cable provides a genuine function completely unrelated to the logo that happens to be printed on it. Not necessarily. The law cares about the brand, not the function. Morally, there’s a distinction; legally, I don’t see why the functionality has any relevance. > Because reselling a genuine cable is completely legal even if you attach it to a third-party screen CBP seized hybrid products, as mentioned above, all the time; even when no logo is present (honey with adulterations is a big problem). The claim it’s completely legal isn’t necessarily true. Individually selling a screen, or a ribbon cable, would probably have much better luck than the combination of the two.