... up to:

>> ... failing to mark them as refurbished.
>> ...
>> Someone who refurbishes a product to make it look closer to new than
>> it is, and fails to mark it as such is misleading the public as a whole.

Insofar as this implies an obligation to mark the item itself as refurbished (as opposed to marking the packaging in which it is contained and/or identifying it as refurbished in the accompanying documentation), I don't believe there is, generally, any such obligation. It is possible that in specific industries or some locations, specific legal obligations in that regard may have been established, but I am not aware of any.

>> Furthermore, he is passing off (to the general market if not the
>> specific buyer) his own craftmanship as the craftmanship of the
>> manufacturer (under license from the casino). That is infringement.

"Craftsmanship" infringement? Not sure what that is. Copyright? Trademark? Something else. I am no expert in this area of the law, Al, so you'll have to cite me chapter and verse of the case, statute or regulation which establishes the principle you've described.

I'm having trouble seeing how that could possibly be a legal principle of general application. To give you one specific personal example, I own a blue willow teapot manufactured by a prominent maker of such china. Several years ago, I dropped it and broke the spout. I took it to an expert in repairing china and she fixed it. Does what you're saying mean that because she failed to mark the tea pot in some way as "refurbished", she infringed the "craftsmanship" rights of the original manufacturer?

Or is there something specific about casino chips which differentiates them from other products and thereby sets up a different legal standard for marking repairs/refurbishment?

Keep in mind, of course, that we are now boring everyone except the lawyers and probably some of them, too!

----- jim o\-S