Answer:
Option C
Explanation:
Trademark infringement refers to the violation of the exclusive privileges assigned to a trademark without including the permission of the trademark owner and any licensee Violation that arise when one person, the "infringer," uses a trademark that is equivalent or ambiguously related to a trademark used by some other group in connection to goods or services that are equivalent or identical to the goods or services.
Where the corresponding marks and products are wholly different, violation of the trademark could still be identified if the recorded label is well recognized under the Paris Agreement. In the U.s a cause of litigation is termed trademark dilution with the use of a label for such significantly different facilities.
<u><em>Securities and Exchange Commission is the answer that you are looking for</em></u>
<em><u />Hope this helps :)</em>
Answer:
C. The policy is in effect because Tony had the implied authority to issue the policy.
Explanation:
In the situation of Tony, it could be concluded safel that he has the implied authority due to the fact that, most of the company's forms and logos are still with him. And, also, none of the company's customers were notified about the termination of Tony's contract thereby invalidating him as being one of the staff of the company.
Answer:
I think the answer is leasehold estate. hope this helps.
