If you call yourself the Burger King in your kitchen, there's no trademark infringement there. However, if you start selling you food and calling yourself the Burger King, then that is a trademark violation. If you want to write Twilight fan fiction using the characters and story lines from the books, you're free to do so. There is no copyright violation. However, if you want to profit from your expansions to another author's work, you have to rename the characters and setting and call it "Fifty shades of grey".

I believe in must jurisdictions its the distribution that makes it an issue not the selling. If you started handing out your "Burger King" burgers in a public place I would expect to be shut down.

Its Trademark Law in Australia.

For example Cadbury has a trademark protecting its purple (defined as pantone 2685C) from competitors in the chocolate industry. On the other hand Whiskas has one protecting its purple (defined as CMYK {40% C, 100% M) from competitors in the cat food industry.

Because its trademark law both only cover their specific industries (so purple would be fair game for a business in another field), but despite the precise definitions used for the colours they would be able to argue that a competitor using a similar purple could cause confusion in consumers, (so they effectively block out an area of the color spectrum).

I believe its production budget was pegged at between $250m and $350m.

So this particular item in the marketing budget is less than 1% of the development costs.

I don't think the maths checks out

If in doubt I recommend looking at either Wikipedia or github for canonical links.

Revanced isn't big enough for a Wikipedia page but there github profile links to the official pages:

https://github.com/ReVanced

a condition with scab formation?

Ask them if unsure but my guess is they mean conditions like Haemophilia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemophilia

Also don't rely on their screening. I believe the test a performed on bundles of donations for efficiency and a bad donation may cause the others in that bundle to be discarded too.

A direct boycott of Amazon and its subsidiaries? Super easy, barely an inconvenience.

But boycotting services that happen to use Amazon? Impossible!

Any business may use products ordered from there. Your local toll gate may use AWS. Unless you are a major client nobody is going to let you audit their supply contracts.

and I know there are some games in the series,

25+ games over 40 years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Sandiego_%28video_game_series%29

That's the whole gene vs meme concept.

The same principal applies in that people who come after you can receive your ideas.

You mean Fahrenheit right?

So... How often do you have to change the filter?

It also goes on sale quite frequently for like 66% off. Definitely worth picking up at sale price.

For anyone already using using these services its also included in both Game Pass and PS+ Extra at the moment.

Weird sales pitch. I'm not sure who he is trying to appeal to here?

Phone numbers are a "legacy system" if they were designed today they would be different.

Do you have a link to the archived screenshot?

Mobile browser tabs are both too persistent in that they don't get cleaned up when you close the browser, and too amnesiac in that they can kill a connection if they are placed in background for even a couple of seconds.

Its the worst of both worlds.

chips

Its a strange product, in the US they were ordered not to call them "chips", and call them "crisps" instead:

The product was originally known as Pringle's Newfangled Potato Chips, but other snack manufacturers objected, saying Pringles failed to meet the definition of a potato "chip" since they were made from a potato-based dough rather than being sliced from potatoes. The US Food and Drug Administration weighed in on the matter, and in 1975 they ruled Pringles could only use the word "chip" in their product name within the phrase: "potato chips made from dried potatoes". Faced with such a lengthy and unpalatable appellation, Pringles eventually renamed their product potato "crisps", instead of chips.

In the UK, they argued they were not "potato crisps" because they though their low potato content would get a lower tax rate.

In July 2008, in the London High Court, P&G lawyers successfully argued that Pringles were not crisps (the term by which potato chips are known in British English), even though labelled "Potato Crisps" on the container, as the potato content was only 42% and their shape, P&G stated, "is not found in nature". This ruling, against a United Kingdom value added tax (VAT) and Duties Tribunal decision to the contrary, exempted Pringles from the then 17.5% VAT for potato crisps and potato-derived snacks. In May 2009, the Court of Appeal reversed the earlier decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pringles

If they stole the code that would be copyright infringement.

Wait... How do Trade Secrets work?

I thought that the individuals might be in legal trouble if they violate NDAs or No Compete clauses but that once the "secret" was out it was fair game.