Trademarks are territorial, so a trademark used in Japan and not used in the US is available for adoption in the US. If the Japanese mark IS used in the US, as many are due to the US being a major market for Japanese products, then the situation gets fuzzier. So, you can likely get this registration in the US. However, that is not the end of the matter as you want to sell to Brazil under this mark. You want to register in Brazil if you adopt this mark because Brazil has a different system that...
No, many intellectual property lawyers don't even practice patent law at all. For example copyright lawyers and trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers and trade secret lawyers and Internet lawyers. all of those are IP lawyers but none are typically registered patent attorneys.
If you want a lawyer that has passed the Patent Bar Examination, you need to look for a registered patent attorney. To find one go to www.uspto.gov and in the search window at the upper right corner of the...
NO. It was never yours. It was always the copyright protected property of the website designer. And, since you did not pay ["for various reasons"? - what kind of vague BS is that? Embarrassed to tell us, maybe?], you do not even have a license to use it. Your self-righteous victim rationalization hold not water. YOU are the bad guy in this situation, for various reasons.
"The website was confiscated." - - Not likely. Hard to "confiscate" some that already belonged to them. Rather, for...
Q: "Is it legal to watch copyright-infringing videos?"
A. No, watching is not copying. If it is streaming and watching, the jury is still out as to whether the buffer copy that is inherent in streaming is an illegal copy.
Q: " If I go to Youtube or a movie-watching site and watch something that contains copyrighted material (movie clips, TV show openings, TV show episodes, songs, characters, logos, etc.), am I breaking the law just by watching it? "
A: Same as previous question and answer....
I also think this is a hollow threat and that order-reversal and combination of two generic terms is likely to withstand challenge. There is a step you should take if you have not yet, and that is to file a Declaration under 15 USC 1065 to make this mark "incontestable". That still leaves the mark subject to challenge as being generic, but removes many other grounds, such as likelihood of confusion, that your adversary, or others, might also allege should you fail to do that.
Anyway, as to...
Yes copyright applies to items registered before 1978 if, in the situation relevant here, the registration existed in 1978, as the 1978 law extended those registrations to life of author plus 70 years or, in the case of a company (here Playboy Enterprises) or if the date of death is unknown, to 95 years. I think you need to get permission or wait until 2062-2069.
See a copyright lawyer for obtaining permission or to try to find other workarounds.
No, this is called "nominative fair use". You have to use the name in order to identify who you are talking about, so that is not illegal. Where you would run into trouble is if you were trying to imply an endorsement or affiliation.
It's illegal, called "reverse passing off", and violates 15 USC 1125. Why? 3 policy reasons -1) reverse passing off deceives the consumer into falsely thinking the product originates with you out under your control, 2) reverse passing off deprives the true brand owner of goodwill from sale of of properly branded merchandise, and 3) reverse passing off dilutes the exclusivity of the branded product and takes control of quality into your had rather than brand owner.
This is poorly worded, but seems to be saying that you have 10 days to back out of the deal if the appraisal is below the sales price, but if you back out you have to pay the difference between what you agreed to pay and the appraised price. So, say you bid $110K and the appraisal came in at $100K. You could back out but you would pay $10K. That is a non-standard clause but not particularly unusual except in its lack of clarity.
No, there is no exemption for previews, and they are not fair use. There is no set time limit. You do not need previews to sell a DVD, so this seems like deliberate infringement to me. I would not do it. It's too risky.