Posted on

What’s in a (Domain) Name? ICANN by any other name would still…

On June 13, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) revealed the list of applications for new gTLDs to be launched as part of its proposed expansion of the top-level domain space. A total of 1,930 applications were filed for strings, including brand names, generic words and abbreviations, geographic terms, and non-ASCII strings (such as Chinese or Arabic). If this is allowed to move forward as it is currently envisaged, it will be a striking change to the domain name system, with dramatic new risks and evolving threats, as well as opportunities. Brand owners – applicants or not – need to strategize and prepare now, to protect their marks and brands. Some may also need to decide whether or not to challenge any pending applications. 

Rimon has assembled a global team of thought-leaders to counsel and guide you. Experienced lawyers who have been following and assisting for years – ever since the proposal was first announced. Rimon is now offering a teleseminar intended to cover:

  • How to develop a strategy to protect your rights – marks and brands
  • What brand owners should be thinking about now
  • Commenting on and objecting to applications
  • The Trademark Clearinghouse and other supposed protections in the new system
  • Updates on industry, governmental and regulatory efforts to provide more protection for brands and trademark owners

You can register through the link here: The gTLD Applications Have Been Revealed: What Brand Owners Must Know Going Forward.

As always, if you need legal or regulatory counsel, call me, Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, or any of the lawyers highlighted in the full Client Alert or, of course, the Rimon lawyer with whom you regularly work.

Posted on

Gift Cards Deal With Discounts & Charity; Chart Updated

This post was written by Keri S. Bruce and Joseph I. Rosenbaum.

If you have been coming back to Legal Bytes to keep up with this and other developments in the law of Advertising Technology & Media ("ATM"), you know that we have been following the world of gift cards for many years (e.g., Gift Card Issuers Fight & Switch, Gift Cards in New Jersey: It’s Complicated!, Federal Reserve Board Has a Free Gift (Card) For You, Credit Card Act of 2009: Act I, Scene 1, Gift Cards in the Legal Limelight, Gift Cards: The Updated Chart is Still Free). If you are a regular Legal Bytes reader, you also probably know that we published and routinely update our U.S. Gift Card Statutory Chart – a reference tool you will certainly find helpful, although not a substitute for experienced legal counsel. In addition to the amendments noted below, we have updated our U.S. Gift Card Statutory Chart and you can read or download the updated chart right here (U.S. Gift Card Statutory Chart) [PDF].

You will also appreciate that we advise clients in this area all the time, assisted by an able team of financial services regulatory specialists, and so it will come as no surprise that we are telling you about some changes to the law in Vermont and Rhode Island that apply to gift cards. The term "gift certificate" is often used in the law, but separate definitions make it clear that the law applies to cards or any similar instrument, regardless of the material (e.g., paper, plastic, beads).

In addition to the Federal Credit Card Act of 2009, many states have their own regulations of gift cards and gift certificates. While many states have carve-outs in their gift certificate laws for loyalty and reward cards, Vermont has gone a step further and embraced group coupon/discount providers by separately defining these cards and providing separate disclosures to benefit consumers. In light of popular group coupon/discount providers, new marketing efforts involving gift cards and the continued prevalence of class actions, such as In re Groupon Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, where Groupon reached a nationwide class action litigation settlement over allegations it had illegal expiration dates and other provisions on its vouchers, it is even more important to stay on top of these ever-changing laws.

Effective as of May 18, 2012, amendments to the Vermont statutes (Vt. Stat. § 2701 et seq.) seek to address issues arising from popular group coupon/discount providers. The new amendments introduce definitions for "a loyalty, award, or promotional gift certificate," "paid value" and "promotional value," extend the expiration dates for the paid value of a gift certificate, and remove the specific exemption for food product gift certificates.

Under the amended law, a "loyalty, award, or promotional gift certificate" is defined as a gift certificate issued on a prepaid basis primarily for personal, family, or household purposes to a consumer in connection with a loyalty, award or promotional program, and that is redeemable upon presentation to one or more merchants for goods or services, or is usable at automated teller machines.

These definitions are important because, if defined as loyalty, award or promotional gift certificates, they can be exempt from the statute’s requirements on expiration dates and fees and some other restrictions that would otherwise apply, provided that certain requirements are met.

To qualify, these instruments must disclose, on the front of the certificate, that the certificate is issued for loyalty, award or promotional purposes, and the date of expiration for both the paid value and promotional value (if any). (More on that distinction in a moment.) On or along with the instrument, the consumer must be informed as to the amount and conditions under which fees may be imposed, and if a fee is assessed and on the instrument, a toll-free telephone number and, if one is maintained, a website a consumer may use to obtain fee information (disclosed on the certificate).

The Vermont amendment distinguishes between "paid" and "promotional" value. Paid value is the value of any money or other consideration given in exchange for the gift certificate. Promotional value means any value shown on a gift certificate in excess of the paid value. Example, a loyalty program buys 1 billion $25 gift cards and pays $19.99 each. The $19.99 is the paid value and the $5.01 is the promotional value. The statute prohibits the paid value from expiring for five years (extended from the previous three-year requirement), while the promotional value is exempt from the restrictions on expiration dates and fees.

Meanwhile, in Rhode Island, amendments – effective as of June 19, 2012 – to gift certificate provisions of the state’s Unfair Sales Practices law (R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-13-12) allow gift cards donated for fundraising purposes to expire, but only if the card clearly states that the instrument has been donated for charity and a clearly defined expiration date of not less than one year after the issuance, is disclosed to the recipient.

If you need help from lawyers who know this area and can provide experienced, practical counsel, contact Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum or Keri Bruce or your favorite Rimon lawyer, all of whom will be happy to help.

Posted on

Annual Registrar Summit – Take the Fifth (Amendment or Bourbon – What’s In A Name?)

Just last Thursday, I had the joy of attending and presenting at the Fifth Annual Registrar Summit (2012) sponsored by GoDaddy.com. A great group of people gathered to discuss the current state of domain name registration. Kicked off by a terrific “how to properly hold a meeting of competitors without running afoul of anti-trust and competition laws” presentation by Chris Compton, the topics ranged from what ICANN is up to these days, to discussions of authentication, security, phishing, malware and what the domain name registration community is trying to do about it.

As I always attempt to do, when permitted, I post a PDF version of my presentation for all to read, and, if you choose, to download a personal copy in PDF form. So, without further ado – feel free to browse through “What’s in a Domain Name? Registration by Any Other Name Would Still Create Legal Issues (subtitled “Clouds, Mobile & Internet Domains – What Me Worry?” [PDF] (The embedded videos have file sizes that are too large to include – so next time show up in the audience and you’ll see them.)

If you want to know more about anything covered in the presentation, or if you need counsel or help navigating the legal issues, feel free to call me, Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, or any of the Rimon lawyers with whom you regularly work.

Posted on

CFPB Proposes Nonbank Risk Supervision

This post was written by Robert M. Jaworski and Joseph I. Rosenbaum.

The Dodd-Frank Act granted to the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) supervisory authority over a wide array of financial entities, including large depository institutions and their affiliates, as well as various nonbank “covered persons,” such as residential mortgage originators and servicers, private education lenders, payday lenders, and “larger participants” in other markets and their respective service providers. To prevent “bad actors” from escaping through cracks in the CFPB’s supervisory reach, Dodd-Frank gave the CFPB broad authority to supervise other nonbank covered persons if CFPB has “reasonable cause to determine, by order … and after a reasonable opportunity to respond” that such nonbank covered person “… is engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services” (“Additional Authority”). The CFPB has now taken its first step toward fleshing out this Additional Authority and providing a framework for this type of supervisory authority.

On May 20, 2012, the CFPB suggested rule was published in the Federal Register, proposing to establish procedures by which it will supervise any nonbank covered person that is not already subject to CFPB supervision. The most significant of these procedures would:

  • Require the CFPB to provide such unsupervised person with a Notice of Reasonable Cause, informing them that the CFPB believes it has a reasonable basis upon which to assert supervisory authority and providing facts that support that belief
  • Give the unsupervised person an opportunity to respond to the Notice, in writing within 20 days, either contesting the assertions or voluntarily consenting to supervision
  • Allow an unsupervised person to contest the assertion of such supervisory authority, in writing, but also through informal arguments in a supplemental oral response (typically by telephone), which would not constitute a hearing on the record, and neither discovery nor testimony of witnesses would be permitted. Following any contest and submissions, the Assistant Director for Nonbank Supervision would be required to make a recommendation, with the Director authorized to issue the final decision and Order as to whether or not the unsupervised person shall be subject to CFPB supervision.
  • Allow the unsupervised person, once becoming subject to CFPB supervision, to petition the Director after two years (and no more than annually thereafter) for termination of the Order. FYI, an unsupervised person that voluntarily consents to CFPB supervision would not have a right to file such a petition.

Issuance of a Notice does not mean charges have been filed against the unsupervised person, it simply triggers the procedures outlined in the CFPB rules. However, if the CFPB issues a notice of charges, it can choose, in its sole discretion, to utilize more formal adjudicatory procedures (including some variations) that are described in 12 C.F.R. 1081.200. Comments on the proposed rules are due by July 24, 2012, and you can read the entire proposed CFPB rule directly at Procedural Rules To Establish Supervisory Authority Over Certain Nonbank Covered Persons Based on Risk Determination.

If you need more information about these proposed rules, or want help determining if you should submit comments and the best way to approach the substance and form of those comments, please contact Robert M. Jaworski (rjaworski@rimonlaw.com). Of course, you can always find out more or get the assistance you need by contacting me, Joe Rosenbaum, or the Rimon attorney with whom you regularly work.