The article here points out what proactive steps industry can take in view of potential new regulation in this area.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
The Draft Executive Order requires certain federal agencies to identify critical infrastructure where a cyber security incident could have national or regional effects on public health or safety, or economic or national security.
Posted by Jason Nardiello at 9:54 AM
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
As has been reported, the FTC recently issued a revised "Green Guides" to guide marketers when making claims regarding the environmental attributes about their products.
We have published a Locke Lord Article entitled “FTC Unveils Final Revised Green Guides for Environmental Marketing- Energy Industry and B2B Included” available here.
Posted by Jason Nardiello at 8:15 PM
Monday, October 1, 2012
|Author: Paul Van Slyke|
The FTC released today the long-awaited final, revised version of its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims — the Green Guides.
If your company makes green or environmental claims in its advertising, labeling or marketing, you will want to seize on the link above and start figuring out what is new, what is changed and what has stayed the same. In the next few weeks, we will be issuing a series of posts with analysis and implications of the revised Green Guides for various industries.
For now, here are a few ways to get started in understanding the revised Green Guides and how they might impact advertising, labeling and marketing for your business.
After briefly reviewing the text of the Green Guides, the next stop should be the EnvironmentalClaims: Summary of the Green Guides prepared by the FTC. It is written for marketers with a brief explanation of the FTC’s approach to environmental benefit claims, and terminology often used in green marketing.
Next, you can watch the video with an overview of the revised Green Guides prepared by the FTC.
Finally, check out the FTC’s Environmental Marketing page with all kinds of resources for green claims, natural claims and energy pitches. You will find links to legal resources such as:
Posted by Jason Nardiello at 5:04 PM
Monday, September 10, 2012
Last November, we wrote an article on the Louboutin red sole trademark case against YSL shortly after Tiffany filed its amicus brief supporting Louboutin’s position at the Second Circuit. Our primary focus was the difference between Tiffany’s and Louboutin’s trademark registrations. Tiffany’s registrations claimed a fairly specific color, namely “robin’s-egg blue,” while Louboutin’s registration simply and broadly claimed “red.” We noted that, at least until the Second Circuit ruled on the issue, it would be advisable to claim colors with some specificity in trademark applications.
As we previously noted, while not perfect, the opinion did a good job of criticizing the breadth and vagueness of the color description in Louboutin’s registration. Now that the Second Circuit has ruled, we feel that we should reexamine the district court’s opinion in light of its characterization by the Second Circuit.
According to the Second Circuit, the district court held “that a single color can never serve as a trademark in the fashion industry” and that “in the fashion industry, single-color marks are inherently ‘functional.’” That’s not how we read the district court’s decision. As we previously noted, the district court did analyze the question of whether a single color could serve as a trademark in the fashion industry and spent considerable time on the functionality issue, but ultimately did not issue any direct holding or per se rule on the viability of single-color marks in this context. Specifically, the district court denied Louboutin’s request for a preliminary injunction (which is based on a likelihood of success standard) because the court had “serious doubts that Louboutin possesses a protectable mark.” Had the district court held that a single color can never serve as a trademark in the fashion industry, it would have stated that Louboutin did not possess a protectable mark rather than merely expressing doubt.
Putting aside the issue of how far the district court did or did not go, it seems the Second Circuit missed the mark by not going far enough to limit Louboutin’s trademark rights. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s order to the extent that it denied Louboutin trademark protection (which it really did not at the preliminary injunction stage, but might have at a later stage of the proceedings) and limited the mark to a red outsole contrasting with the other parts of the shoe (and ordered that Louboutin’s registration be amended accordingly). Since YSL’s allegedly infringing shoes were monochromatic, the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of the injunction based on its ruling that Louboutin’s rights were limited to contrasting uppers. However, the Second Circuit did not address the claimed “red” color itself or the type of footwear to which the red color is applied.
The district court spent a good number of paragraphs discussing the vagueness and ambiguity of Louboutin’s trademark with respect to both of these issues. Let’s first take a look at the color dimension. Here’s what we said last November concerning the vagueness and breadth of the claimed color:
Imagine the difficulty for competitors – are fire engine, cherry, and brick red all covered by Louboutin’s registration? There are difficulties on the consumer side too – can multiple shades of red establish sufficient secondary meaning to support the registration, and can the average person even tell the difference between certain shades?
Or perhaps it is “Chinese Red” (Pantone No. 18-1663 TP) that is covered by Louboutin’s registration, as Louboutin asserted in his preliminary injunction reply brief? Oh, but wait, after YSL pointed out that it never used Chinese Red, Louboutin insisted that YSL used a (different) shade that was still too close. Which shade? We don’t know. Apparently, neither does Louboutin. At one point in argument, Louboutin asked the district court to pick a particular range of colors above and below Pantone No. 18-1663 TP and find that anything within that range of hues and shades of red would be infringing its trademark. The district court declined because it found that such an approach would have “the effect of appropriating more than a dozen shades of red-and perhaps other colors [such as pink and orange] as well.”
It appears that the real problem is not that Louboutin’s registration claimed a single color. The real problem is that Louboutin’s registration claimed an entire spectrum of red colors.
And what about the type of footwear? The registration states “women’s high fashion designer footwear.” What is high fashion? As the district court pointed out, Louboutin sued Zara in France. And while Zara makes some nice, trendy stuff, it’s not exactly the type of brand that would be considered “high fashion.” And what types of shoes exactly? Would flats and flip-flops be included? What about low-heeled shoes? At one point Louboutin tried to limit his registration to “high-heeled” shoes, but as the district court also pointed out, the registration doesn’t include that limitation.
Here’s something else to consider: what about design-your-own shoe websites and stores? Would a customer be liable for infringing Louboutin’s mark for using Nike ID to make Air Force 1’s with a glossy red sole and a black upper? Would a customer be liable for infringing Louboutin’s mark for ordering a custom pair of sandals to be made with a glossy red sole and brown straps? Would the manufacturers have any liability?
Perhaps these are bad analogies because designers would know better than to pursue an infringement claim against a competitor’s shoe that is clearly not going to cause customer confusion, right? Maybe not, since Louboutin sued YSL for a monochromatic shoe that wasn’t lacquered and didn’t use the Chinese Red that Louboutin now claims is his shade of red. Customers and competitors alike are left without proper guidance as to which hues or shades of “red” are off limits.
Louboutin’s registration was too broad and too vague and remains so even after the Second Circuit’s ruling. Although the Second Circuit did well to at least limit the registration to contrasting uppers, it could have taken this opportunity to rein in a clearly overbroad and vague registration. Having passed on that opportunity, did the Second Circuit effectively hand Louboutin an exclusive palette of the entire spectrum of “red” to be used on shoe outsoles as long as the uppers are a contrasting color? We’re not suggesting that Louboutin should necessarily be tied to a specific Pantone No. (although, interestingly, some foreign countries require a specific Pantone No. when a color claim is made in a trademark application), but Louboutin’s registration should have at least been limited to a word-description of the particular hue or shade of red that he intended to claim. In the end, the Second Circuit’s opinion does not shed much light on the boundaries of color claims in the fashion world, but we still think is advisable to claim color marks with some specificity. After all, Tiffany seems to be doing just fine with “robin’s-egg blue.”
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Consumer Privacy and Cookies: What the FTC's $22.5 Million Settlement With Google Means For Your Company
|Author: Paul C. Van Slyke|
Overlooked Privacy Claims in the Google Case
Google claimed in its fine print that for users of the Safari browser that it would not place tracking cookies on the users’ computers or serve them targeted advertisements. The FTC alleged that Google used codes to disguise its cookies to work around Safari’s opt-out default setting.
Overlooked Claims of Self-Regulatory Compliance
Many companies promote on their website their affiliation with self-regulatory programs. For example, to join the Network Advertising Initiative (NAI), a voluntary self-regulatory group for the online advertising industry, company members agree to disclose to users their data collection and use practices. Although Google touted its NAI membership on its website, the FTC says the company did not truthfully disclose what it was doing with Safari users’ data.
- The CEO and top executives of your company must often repeat that they are committed to compliance with consumer privacy and advertising laws and they will hold the IT director and Chief Marketing Officer accountable.
- Your information technology staff needs to take the lead in compliance before your marketing managers and legal advisors get involved.
- The internal policy should require that IT department make and update a list of all the places on your company websites, social media promotions and sponsored blogs where privacy representations and claims are made, maintain an inventory of the cookies they use, and not launch new ones without both marketing and legal review.
- The internal policy should also require that the marketing staff make and update a separate list of all the user tracking tools being used on your company websites, social media promotions and sponsored blogs and maintain an inventory of the categories of data being collected from users, and not launch new tracking tools or categories of data being collected without both IT and legal review.
- Sidestepping users’ preferences can lead to costly legal missteps.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
|By: Paul C. Van Slyke|
The National Advertising Division, following its review of advertising by Nutrisystem, Inc. on the new social media site Pinterest, has determined that the weight-loss success stories “pinned” to such boards represent consumer testimonials and require the complete disclosure of material information and the results consumers can generally expect to receive. Nutrisytems currently has many advertisements on Pinterest.com. See http://pinterest.com/search/?q=nutrisystem.
NAD is an investigative unit of the advertising industry’s system of self-regulation and is administered by the Council of Better Business Bureaus. NAD decisions are non-binding, but are given deep respect by the advertising industry and the advertising legal community. Compliance with NAD decisions is generally a good guide for avoiding liability in civil litigation and Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) enforcement actions.
Pinterest.com is a trendy new virtual bulletin board, often described as a social photo-sharing or scrapbooking website where users create and manage theme-based image collections by “pinning” digital content they add or find on the web to their personal boards. When content is “pinned,” Pinterest automatically grabs the source link for the content which allows Pinterest to give credit to the original creator, and allows users to return to the original source of the content simply by clicking on the image as it appears on the pinboard. When a photo is repinned, Pinterest prompts the user to direct the image to the specific pinboard they wish to pin to, and, provide comments or notes about the image (if they wish )
NAD noted in its decision that Pinterest has become a new way for companies to encourage consumers to engage with their products and drive traffic to their websites.
Nutrisystem’s “Real Consumers” pinboard featured photos of “real” NutriSystem customers and highlighted their weight-loss successes. The customer’s name, total weight loss and a link to the NutriSystem website appeared below each photo. If consumers browsing the Nutrisystem Pinterest board clicked on Nutrisystem’s consumer testimonial pins, they were redirected to Nutrisystem’s website at www.nutrisystem.com
Express Claims at Issue
Express claims at issue in NAD’s review included:
• “Christine B. lost 46 lbs on Nutrisystem.”
• “Michael H. lost 125 lbs. on Nutrisystem.”
• “Lisa M. lost 115 lbs. on Nutrisystem.”
• “Christine H. lost 223 lbs. on Nutrisystem.”
In its decision, the NAD found that the claims made on Pinterest were testimonial and required complete disclosures of “material” information. In re Pinterest (unpublished) (NAD Case # 5479 06/20/12). The NAD found that one board, entitled “Real Customers. Real Success.” featured photos of “real” Nutrisystem customers and highlighted their weight loss success. The customer’s name, total weight loss and a link to the Nutrisystem website appeared below each photo. The NAD found “[i] t is undisputed that these pins represent consumer testimonials.”
The NAD cited Section 255.2 (b) of the FTC’s Guidelines Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising that states:
An advertisement containing an endorsement relating the experience of one or more consumers on a central or key attribute of the product or service also will likely be interpreted as representing that the endorser's experience is representative of what consumers will generally achieve with the advertised product or service in actual, albeit variable, conditions of use. Therefore, an advertiser should possess and rely upon adequate substantiation for this representation. If the advertiser does not have substantiation that the endorser's experience is representative of what consumers will generally achieve, the advertisement should clearly and conspicuously disclose the generally expected performance in the depicted circumstances, and the advertiser must possess and rely on adequate substantiation for that representation.
The NAD found that the weight loss “pins” found on Nutrisystem’s “Real Customers. Real Success.” board tout atypical results (i.e., “Michael H. lost 125 lbs. on Nutrisystem” or “Lisa M. lost 115 lbs. on Nutrisystem”). Therefore, as required by the FTC Guidelines, the NAD concluded that these pins should be accompanied by a clear and conspicuous disclosure noting the typical results consumers can expect to achieve using the Nutrisystem weight loss program.
The NAD noted that if consumers browsing the Nutrisystem Pinterest board clicked on Nutrisystem’s consumer testimonial pins, they were redirected to Nutrisystem’s website which included the necessary qualifying information (i.e., the typical results a consumer can expect to achieve using the Nutrisystem program). The NAD observed, however, that it is well-established that disclosures should not only be clear, conspicuous and easy to understand, but placed in immediate proximity to the claim or representation it is intended to clarify. In re the Campbell Soup Company (Campbell’s Supper Bakes), Case #4038, NAD/CARU Case Reports (May/June 2003). Therefore, said the NAD, providing the disclosure on the website (which the consumer may or may not visit), is not sufficient.
The advertiser Nutrisystem agreed that such statements require a disclosure, and immediately added the necessary disclosure (“Results not typical. On Nutrisystem®, you can expect to lose at least 1-2 lbs. per week. Individuals are remunerated. Weight lost on prior Nutrisystem® program.” The NAD therefore concluded its action.
Social media and online sites that may not appear to be traditional advertising media can have advertising messages of a testimonial or endorsement nature that require compliance with the requirements for complete disclosures of material information as well as comply with the FTC guidelines. When there is any reasonable interpretation that the content is a commercial advertising message of a testimonial or endorsement nature, it is wise to include a complete disclosure of material information about the endorser’s connections with the advertiser and whether the endorser was paid or received a benefit from the advertiser, accompanied by a clear and conspicuous disclosure noting the typical results consumers can expect to achieve. The disclosure must be in close proximity to the advertising claim.
Posted by Jason Nardiello at 5:46 PM
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Today is ICANN’s Reveal Day for the new generic top level domain (gTLD) applications. Common gTLD’s include .com, .net, .org, and country-specific domain name extensions such as .uk (United Kingdom) or .ca (Canada). The new gTLD extensions are referred to as “strings.” ICANN published its list of applied-for gTLD strings here. You can download a PDF version of the list here. You can search for strings of interest here.
Now that the gTLD application list has been published, a public review period has begun, including a 2-month comment period and a 7-month formal objection period. ICANN permits a few objections anyone can raise(applicants and non-applicants).
The “Legal Rights Objection” will likely be the most useful and relevant for purposes of brand protection. Once a Legal Rights Objection is filed, an independent panel of one or three experts will decide whether the applied-for gTLD string would be likely to infringe an existing trademark, intergovernmental organization name, or another acronym in which an entity has a cognizable right.
The panel will decide whether the applied-for gTLD takes unfair advantage of the objecting party’s mark or name, whether it unjustifiably impairs the distinctive character or reputation of the objecting party’s mark or name, or whether it creates a likelihood of confusion with the objecting party’s mark or name. To make these determinations, the panel looks to various non-exclusive factors, including, whether the applied-for gTLD is identical or similar in appearance, sound or meaning to the objecting party’s mark or name, and whether the intended use of the applied-for gTLD will create a likelihood of confusion with the objecting party’s mark or name as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the gTLD.
Trademark and brand owners should take the time on the front end to challenge any gTLD strings that may be encroaching on their trademark or brand names. We think that the effort put into challenging objectionable gTLD strings now could pay huge dividends in the future, especially considering the time and cost of after-the-fact trademark litigation, UDRP proceedings, and ad hoc brand enforcement and protection.