> Third party screens with genuine Apple cables and logos? Why should CBP treat that differently?
Because reselling a genuine cable is completely legal even if you attach it to a third-party screen. Swapping logos is not comparable because the cable provides a genuine function completely unrelated to the logo that happens to be printed on it.
> How does CBP know you aren’t going to sell them as genuine parts?
That isn't CBPs problem, its Apple's problem to identify and enforce their trademark if someone actually does attempt to sell them as genuine parts.
> A trademark owner can overcome the first sale doctrine defense if it can show that the unauthorized reseller is using the trademark on goods that lack its quality control standards.
> 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.
So you advocate for not being able to sell a honda civic with a ferrari air freshner inside it? What about a skoda with a VW radio inside (i think it fits in some models)?
> Because reselling a genuine cable is completely legal even if you attach it to a third-party screen. Swapping logos is not comparable because the cable provides a genuine function completely unrelated to the logo that happens to be printed on it.
Seems like a plausible test but it's easy to poke holes in it. What if I get some shoe laces with a pattern of the Louis Vuitton logo and put them in generic shoes?
> Seems like a plausible test but it's easy to poke holes in it. What if I get some shoe laces with a pattern of the Louis Vuitton logo and put them in generic shoes?
Since the specific example was explicitly marked third party screens that shipped with a official Apple cable included that happens to have Apple logos on it in an invisible way, your analogy is not great.
If I sold a pair of generic shoes labeled as just generic shoes, but lace them with a set of laces from Louis Vuitton shoes that have a small logo hidden on the tip, never advertising this fact in any way, that would be the comparison.
No one is claiming that the whole assembly is an official Apple product, they're not even marketing the official cable, so why should the fact that they did actually use an official cable suddenly make the whole product "counterfeit"?
> Seems like a plausible test but it's easy to poke holes in it.
You are right, its definitely not sufficient and from what I can tell legally, the main test in the cases we have been talking about is whether or not its likely to confuse consumers.
So in the case of the screens, the fact that it is a tiny logo on a functional internal component that the consumer won't see strongly indicates there is little intent or risk of consumer confusion.
In the case of the shoes, there is risk of confusion. Its possible that it could be made legal if sold as "Sketcher's Shoe with Custom Louis Vuitton laces" as that would mitigate the risk of confusion.
Because reselling a genuine cable is completely legal even if you attach it to a third-party screen. Swapping logos is not comparable because the cable provides a genuine function completely unrelated to the logo that happens to be printed on it.
> How does CBP know you aren’t going to sell them as genuine parts?
That isn't CBPs problem, its Apple's problem to identify and enforce their trademark if someone actually does attempt to sell them as genuine parts.