Don't think that Tyra would be able to get a patent for her skirt simply because there is a Coca-Cola logo on her skirt. The skirt couldn't get patented in itself because it's fabric but she would need a copyright to continue her logo on her clothing of the Coca-Cola symbol. If Tyra could come up with her own logo of a drink that could be in a vending machine, then she could get that patented and no one else would be able to use it without copyrights from her. One way she may be able to keep the Coca-Cola logo is if she was able to get a Fair use doctrine, and follow the limits of use of the logo. B: This is the proper outcome as long as the intention of Jay -Z and Beyonce is not to use the the name Blue Ivy to push anything related to wedding planning. The issue is whether or not the name Blue Ivy should be aloud to be trademarked by the couple. The rule is that as the PTO will not grant a trademark to the use of a surname unless it has acquired secondary meaning due to it having proximity to a name brand or company such as Dell or Apple. Realistically, the trademark of Blue Ivy is fine to be used by Jay-Z and Beyonce as long as it does not end up being used for similar business practices as the wedding planner.

would these statements be incorrect or not? and why