Which drops us deep into the abyss of U. S. Trademark law, which is far more murkier than U. S. Copyright law: if the OP is advertising these items as "new" items, the trademark holder (Subway -- or whatever conglomerate now owns Subway) does have the right to file a VERO claim, since the OP is not licensed by Subway to sell new Subway merchandise. Many trademark holders are very jealous of their brands, and only license them sparingly -- and generally not on the secondary market.
A classic case occurred in 1989, when Eternity Comics published a comic book entitled THE UNCENSORED MOUSE, which featured black-and-white MICKEY MOUSE newspaper comic strips from the 1930s, which had not been copyright renewed, and thus were in the public domain. Each comic was sealed inside a black plastic sleeve, thus concealing the contents, since the storylines contained many racist stereotypes, plus buckets of violent behavior from our treasured Mickey; and no where on either the front or rear covers was the name "Mickey Mouse" used, although the name was, of course, used throughout the interior storylines.
Only two issues had hit the shelves, before the Disney lawyers had descended upon Eternity Comics like an anvil hitting Pistol Pete. But Eternity fought back, asserting that the strips were no longer copyrighted, and thus open game for anyone to reprint.
While the Disney lawyers conceded the copyright issue, they pointed out that Walt Disney Corporation had never ceded the trademark to ANY of the Disney characters, which was still in effect (and probably will remain in effect, long after all of us are dead).
Thus, while Eternity Comics had the right to reprint the original Disney newspaper stories about Mickey Mouse, all of the stories would have to be scrubbed of any images and names of EVERY trademarked Disney character appearing therein -- not impossible, but largely financially pointless: Who would buy a collection of butchered black-and-white newspaper comics from the 1930s, that had previously featured a famous cartoon character who could not be legally mentioned or pictured?
And that was the end of THE UNCENSORED MOUSE. Several years later, authorized collections finally saw print -- but those were formally licensed through Walt Disney Corporation.
Which brings us back to the OP's problem -- the OP is not licensed to use the Subway trademark, and I imagine that the pockets of Subway are significantly deeper than those of the OP -- Subway may well keep the OP in court for YEARS with one minor litigation after another, until the OP screams "Uncle."
Been there -- done that -- and it ain't pretty, believe me. . ..
