Regarding the similarities between Hawaiian and Japanese: There are theories among linguists that there is a connection between Austronesian languages and Japanese. These theories don’t seem to be infeasible, but are currently lacking sufficient supporting evidence.
What's the difference between selling exclusively to a third party (against whom they don't enforce their trademark) who buys exclusively from them, and actually answering the headline with "yes"?
I understand there's a legal distinction, but there's so little practical difference that you'd be hard pressed to explain the distinction to a layperson.
Unless maybe you got hurt by a defective item and tried to sue Target for damages. I assume this scheme is intended to insulate Target from that possibility, their lawyers would argue that you'd have to sue Bullseye Deals, LLC which has negligible assets, not their multi-billion-dollar corporation..
> What's the difference between selling exclusively to a third party (against whom they don't enforce their trademark) who buys exclusively from them, and actually answering the headline with "yes"?
The article doesn't make any claims about exclusivity for target selling or this company buying. I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I don't think the trademark claim is very strong either. Target's logo is a red circle surrounded by a white/transparent circle, surrounded by another red circle (bullseye). Their trademark application says "The mark consists of concentric circles representing a target or bullseye design." This seller's logo is a silhouette of white bull in a red circle.
There's some similar elements, but I don't think there's confusion. Target is affiliated with bullseyes, and uses bullseye in some of its trademarks, but the word bullseye by itself is not a trademark of Target.
You can buy Target return/overstock pallets at auction, and a deals account likely just resells that. Target doesn’t have to deal with it on an item level at that point.
Target does have some really restrictive rules on those pallets however that Bullseye deals doesn't seem to follow so they have either some form of an agreement in place where they don't have to or they're just a spinoff totally-not-target corp.
No they don't, I bought a box of Target returns from American Liquidations and I didn't have to agree to any rules, just bought the box. Target can't enforce any rules on me, as I have no relationship with Target whatsoever. The absolute worst thing Target can do is stop selling to American Liquidations.
It's exactly the same - they aren't buying directly from target, they are buying thorough Liquidity Services, Inc.
"Sources tell Modern Retail that all the listings are salvage merchandise from Target that’s been purchased by the reverse supply chain services company Liquidity Services, Inc."
Not really? I said they likely have a different agreement with Target. What I was saying is from my experience trying to buy pallets from Target. I linked to one of the requirement documents in another comment.
Target requires delabeling on most items in pallets that are Target branded and at least when I last looked they said no exporting. I went down the path of trying to apply to purchase pallets myself but opted against it even if a lot of other resellers ignore the rules. Not worth it - plus good chance of getting stuck with school supplies like reams of paper which you really can't do anything with when selling online.
I think “Nothing Gold Can Stay” fits the mold. It’s a heartbreaking poem of beautiful construction and depth that is dismissed because it has been heavily cited by popular culture. It doesn’t help that what it has to say, at first glance, appears to be cut short by its title:
Nature's first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf's a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
Early versions of the poem show meandering sequential steps of revision that suddenly give way to a less intuitive flourish that anchors it.
A shuffle already implies shuffling like a deck of cards, so you wouldn’t get duplicates unless you had two of the same card, and I that’s how it was described in the manual.
To the the contrary, in the US, there is caselaw that, if your unauthorized derivative work is infringing, then you do not own the original elements of that work either. See Pickett v Prince.
What were the original elements there? That it was made into a guitar? What other part of the work was creative?
I'm honestly asking because I can't find anything that goes as far as the claim you're making regarding original elements. I'm not even sure what original/severable elements could exist in that particular case.
Pickett argued there were original elements, not me. But whether they existed didn’t matter to the court. From the decision:
“We need not pursue the issue of originality of derivative works. The Copyright Act grants the owner of a copyright the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. […] So Pickett could not make a derivative work based on the Prince symbol without Prince's authorization even if Pickett's guitar had a smidgeon of originality.”
