The Bluetooth group is fighting the maker of Dodges and Jeeps for not paying twice

Image: Chrysler

A US appeals court has decided that a trademark case brought against it by a standards organization is valid. The case could set a precedent about whether or not cars can be bought with radios that have already been certified for Bluetooth or if they have to pay theSIG to certify them.

After the merger of the two companies, the automaker is now known as Stellantis. At the time, it said that the Jeep Wrangler and Dodge Grand Caravan were not certified for use in the US. The lower court will have to listen to the automaker's argument now that the case has been sent back to them. You can read the decision at the bottom of the post.

The lower court rejected the defense that the car radio and the car itself have to go through certification. The first sale doctrine is meant to allow the resale of copyrighted works. In this case, the company is saying that it applies because it buys its systems from companies that have already paid fees and gotten their products certified forBluetooth. It should not have to re-certify products that have already been certified.

It should, according to the Bluetooth SIG. The group argues that the group was trying to get a free ride by arguing that the group was trying to get a free ride by arguing that the group was trying to get a free ride by arguing that the group was trying to get a free ride by arguing that the group was trying to get The group's argument doesn't seem to be that the automaker is tarnishing its brand with a bad experience. The group is upset that the group is getting to know that the group bought a radio that was certified for the wireless communication protocol.

The lower court was wrong to reject the argument that first sale doctrine applies. This doesn't mean that the case is settled, but it does mean that the case will be argued again. This isn't a settled matter yet, as the appeals court's decision could set precedent for future cases. If the case is lost, it could be a green light to go after other manufacturers.

First sale doctrine has been seen in other cases. It was brought up when StockX started selling NFTs with images of Nike shoes, saying that the digital token were stand-ins for physical sneakers it had already bought. It came up again when Nike sued the company for trademark violation after it collaborated with the rapper to sell Nike sneakers that were made with human blood. There were no arguments in court about whether the first sale doctrine allowed the sale of a set of shoes with Nike's logo on them, and the StockX lawsuit is still ongoing.

There have been arguments about it in relation to online thrift shops and the sale of used books and DVDs.