Pattishall IP Blog

July 20, 2010

New .co Domain Names Now Available

Filed under: Internet — Tags: , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 2:56 pm

By Alexis Payne, Esq.

Beginning July 20, 2010, the registry operator of the .co top-level domain, .CO Internet S.A.S., is making .co domains available to the general public through registers such as GoDaddy.com, Network Solutions, and Register.com.  The move opens the .co top-level domain, which was once the country code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) for Colombia, to the general public.

Research carried out on behalf of .CO Internet S.A.S revealed that 75 percent of web users said they associated .co with “company,” “corporation,” or other commercial endeavors.  More than twenty countries, including the United Kingdom (.co.uk) and Japan (.co.jp), already use .co domains for their ccTLD’s.  Further, nearly 70 percent of the brands listed in the Brand Finance Top 500 have already been pre-registered as .co domain names, including Amazon, American Express, Apple, BMW, Cartier, Canon, CNN, Coca-Cola, Disney, eBay, Exxon, Ford, Google, Hilton, Honda, IBM, IKEA, Kodak, McDonalds, Microsoft, MTV, Nestle, Nike, Nokia, Panasonic, Pfizer, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba, Toyota, Unilever, Visa, Yahoo, and others. (more…)

June 23, 2010

New Virginia Promotions Statute to Take Effect on July 1, 2010

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 11:24 am

By Alexis Payne, Esq.

Effective July 1, 2010, a new gambling statute will go into effect in Virginia that could affect promotions conducted in the state.  See Va. Code §§ 18.2‑325, 18.2-325.1.  The law provides that “any lawful game, contest, lottery, scheme, or promotional offering (the contest) may be conducted” so long as the sponsor satisfies several new disclosure requirements set out in the newly-added provision.  Va. Code § 18.2-325.1.  For instance, the sponsoring entity must make available a method of free entry to all participants who wish to enter the contest without purchase.  Further, any implicated promotion must provide an equal opportunity to play and equal odds of winning for all participants.  The new law also requires various written disclosures, including the terms and conditions of entry, the official promotion rules, the manner in which to request free entry, and the identity of the contest sponsor, among other required disclosures. (more…)

February 16, 2010

Defamatory "Tweet" Complaint Dismissed

Filed under: First Amendment, Internet — Tags: , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 5:43 pm

By Alexis Payne, Esq.

On January 27, 2010, the Circuit Court of Cook County dismissed a property manager’s defamation claim against a disgruntled tenant over a Twitter post.  The tenant, Amanda Bonnen, posted the following “tweet”[1] on Twitter to vent her frustration with Horizon Realty, her property manager: “Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you?  Horizon realty thinks it’s okay.”  Horizon Realty alleged it sustained $50,000 in damages as a result of the disparaging post, despite the fact that Ms. Bonnen’s Twitter account only had twenty followers.[2]

Ms. Bonnen filed a motion to dismiss the case, contending that her tweet statement was not a verifiable fact and instead was merely her opinion.  In an unpublished opinion, Judge Diane Larson agreed, finding that “the tweet was non-actionable as a matter of law,” and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. (more…)

October 22, 2009

FDA Announces Intent to Target Nutritional Claims on Food Packaging

Filed under: Advertising — Tags: , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 8:02 pm

By Alexis Payne, Esq.

The Office of Nutrition, Labeling and Dietary Supplements Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued its “Guidance for Industry: Letter Regarding Point of Purchase Food Labeling.”  In the letter, the FDA announced its intent to take action against food manufacturers who make nutritional claims on front of packaging (FOP) food labeling that misleads consumers on the products’ health benefits.  Currently, FOP labeling is voluntary information that is intended to provide information about nutritional attributes of food.  Nevertheless, FOP labeling is subject to the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that prohibit false or misleading claims.

The FDA reported that FOP labeling makes it less likely consumers will read the Nutritional Facts labels on foods, which are typically located on the side or back of food packaging.  The FDA also announced its investigation of misleading FOP labels.  Part of this investigation centers on food manufacturers’ use of symbols that expressly or impliedly advertise nutrient content claims. (more…)

October 7, 2009

FTC Announces Revised Guides on the Use of Endorsement and Testimonials in Advertising

Filed under: Advertising — Tags: , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 9:54 pm

By Alexis Payne Esq.

On October 5, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced changes to its Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (“Guides”) that will take effect on December 1, 2009.  Under the revised Guides, advertisements that depict consumer experiences that are atypical will be required to conspicuously disclose the actual expected results.  The precursor to the Guides, in contrast, allowed advertisers to discuss atypical results as long as a disclaimer (such as “results not typical”) was included in the advertisement.

The Guides also require the disclosure of  ”material connections” between advertisers and endorsers, including in blogging and “word-of-mouth” contexts.  For example, if a blogger is paid to endorse a product on his or her blog, that material connection must be disclosed in the endorsement. (more…)

June 12, 2009

New Federal Law Requires Gift Cards And Gift Certificates To “Clearly and Conspicuously” Disclose Fees and Expiration Terms

Filed under: Advertising — Tags: — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 8:57 pm

By Alexis Payne, Trademark Attorney

On May 22, 2009, President Obama signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009, which provides some federal regulation of gift certificates, store gift cards, and general-use pre-paid cards

What does the Credit Card Act require from issuers of gift cards and gift certificates?

  • Prohibits an expiration date of less than five years from the day the gift card is activated.
  • If a gift card expires after five years, requires that the terms of expiration must be clearly and conspicuously disclosed.
  • Prohibits the imposition of dormancy or inactivity fees on gift cards unless there has been no activity on the card in a twelve month period and provided that no more than one fee is charged per month.
  • Requires that dormancy or inactivity fees be clearly and conspicuously disclosed. (more…)

May 20, 2009

FTC to Study How Consumers See "Green" Marketing

Filed under: Advertising — Tags: , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 5:36 pm

Lexy Payne, trademark attorney, outlines the FTCs Study on How Consumers See “Green” Marketing.

On May 12, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced plans to conduct a study on consumer perception of environmental advertising claims (74 Fed. Reg. 22395-22399) in connection with its review of the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, 16 C.F.R. § 260.1, et seq. (“Green Guides”). The FTC’s Green Guides represent interpretations of laws administered by the FTC. Further, the Green Guides specifically address environmental advertising and marketing practices and provide the basis for voluntary compliance with such laws by industry members. Specifically, the Green Guides provide guidance on making claims such as biodegradable, compostable, recyclable, recycled content, and ozone safe, while discouraging broad, unqualified environmental claims, such “eco-friendly.”

The FTC’s anticipated study was likely prompted by the increased use of environmental marketing and its effect on the consuming public. It is expected that the FTC will use this opportunity to evaluate and implement more stringent guidelines for “green” marketing campaigns. This development serves as a reminder that legal clearance for environmental claims is integral as the FTC’s scrutiny of such claims is expected to increase. The FTC will accept public comment on the proposed study through June 11, 2009.

Visit www.pattishall.com.

March 13, 2009

Lexy Payne, Chicago Trademark Attorney, simplifies the California Omnibus Sweepstakes Bill

Filed under: Advertising — Tags: , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 5:30 pm

On September 30, 2008, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law the California Omnibus Sweepstakes Bill, Senate Bill 1400. The bill amended Section 17539.15 of the California Business and Professions Code. The objective of the bill was to prevent deceptive advertising in conjunction with the promotion of sweepstakes in California. The new sweepstakes law more closely aligns California’s sweepstakes law with the more stringent consumer protection and disclosure requirements mandated by the federal Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act and sweepstakes laws in Texas and Colorado. The bill became law on January 1, 2009.

The amendments to Section 17539.1 impose the following requirements and prohibitions:

  • The “NO PURCHASE OR PAYMENT NECESSARY” language must be set out in a separate paragraph from the rest of the official rules. In addition, the statement must be in all capital letters, in contrasting typeface, and it must be no smaller than the largest typeface used in the rest of the official rules. If the official rules are not printed on the marketing materials, then the “NO PURCHASE OR PAYMENT NECESSARY” language must be included on the entry form.
  • The date the final winners are determined must be disclosed in the official rules.
  • A prohibition against charging a fee as a condition to receiving information about a sweepstakes or prize.
  • A prohibition against falsely representing that a person receiving the sweepstakes offer has been specially selected.

Visit www.pattishall.com for additional Advertising and Promotions information.

View Ms. Payne’s biographical information here.

Theme: Silver is the New Black. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 64 other followers