Last month we asked a follow-up question about Charles Darwin. Specifically, what did he and Abraham Lincoln have in common. While there were plenty of “common” themes—both were considered radical or revolutionary, both had mothers who died relatively young and within a year of each other, and both considered slavery immoral—the one single indisputable thing they shared, despite being born on two different continents, was the same birthday—Feb. 12, 1809. The first person with the right answer was our avid reader and long-time fan, Matthew Krigbaum, Assistant General Counsel at Transamerica Capital Management. Thanks Matt; a prize is on the way!
Whatz Gnu? Rimon Teleseminar: Facebook Personalized URLs: Titanic Brand Opportunity or Tip of an Iceberg?
Last week, Facebook announced the availability of a personalized Facebook URLs. This latest offering from Facebook raises serious issues—issues that are typically encountered when technology collides with traditional intellectual property laws intended to protect trademarks and brand names. Much like the confusion and abuse that proliferated when cybersquatting became rampant over the ownership and administration of domain names, we now have social networks and service providers allowing users to generate content and offering customized URLs within their domains in a digital and borderless world. Significantly, the promotional momentum created by Facebook’s offer has caused every astute brand and trademark owner to ponder whether they should be in a rush to register their personalized URL on Facebook, or let it ride and deal with potential infringements when—and if—they occur! You need practical guidance and insightful approaches to these problems.
The Media & Entertainment Industry Team and the Advertising Technology & Media Law Group at Rimon have put together an informative one-hour teleseminar entitled “Facebook Personalized URLs: Titanic Brand Opportunity or Tip of an Iceberg?” airing on Tuesday, June 23 at 12 p.m. EDT with partners Doug Wood and Joe Rosenbaum, to help you understand the issues, formulate an approach and make informed decisions and you are invited to participate. Participation is free, although long-distance telephone charges apply outside of the United States, the UK, France, and Germany, where 800 numbers are used. Don’t miss this call!
Call-in ports are limited, so please click here to register or contact Anna Kazachkov at akazachkov@rimonlaw.com no later than Monday, June 22, to receive a dial-in number and a passcode. If you require additional information, you can contact Anna by telephone directly at +1.212.702.1399.
George Bernard Shaw and Winston Churchill
George Bernard Shaw sent a note to Winston Churchill saying “I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend… if you have one.”
To which Sir Winston replied “Cannot possibly attend first night, will attend second… if there is one.”
Facebook Adds Personalization & a (Brand) New Dimension?
On Tuesday, June 9, the popular social networking website, Facebook, announced that on Saturday, June 13 at 12:01 a.m. U.S. EDT, it will allow its registered users, subject to certain criteria and qualifications, to create personalized URLs for profiles and pages on Facebook (e.g., http://www.Facebook.com/insertyournamehere. Currently, a user’s Facebook URL consists of the Facebook.com URL followed by numbers (e.g., http://www.facebook.com/profiles.Php?349485).
Allowing users to register personalized names on the web raises, among other things, infringement issues under federal and state trademark and related intellectual property laws, particularly for owners of well-known brands. Any registration process creates fears of cyber squatting and other attempts to hijack trademarks and brand names. Sometimes these fears are well founded; other times they are not. You may have already received bulletins from law firms and bloggers eager to alert you to the fact that Facebook has also announced it has created an online submission form that allows owners of registered trademarks to notify them of their IP rights. Ostensibly, Facebook intends to use the information submitted to preclude others from attempting to use registered marks in personalizing their URLs on Facebook.
While we applaud advising clients and friends of this development, we believe the matter is considerably more complicated than previous briefs and hasty reports may indicate. As is so often the case, the devil is in the detail, and the information below will give you a deeper look at the issues before racing to submit notifications of your IP rights to Facebook.
Continue reading “Facebook Adds Personalization & a (Brand) New Dimension?”
Gift Cards Tag Along with Credit Card Legislation
We previously reported its progress in Legal Bytes and last week, President Obama signed into law the Credit Card Act of 2009. Although the bulk of the Act (and the bulk of the publicity surrounding its enactment and passage) deals with credit cards, it also amends the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and implements federal regulation of general use pre-paid cards, gift certificates and store (retail) gift cards. The new law is scheduled to take effect Aug. 21, 2010, and substantively deals with dormancy fees (so-called “inactivity” or service fees) and expiration dates.
In the area of dormancy or inactivity fees, the new law prohibits them unless there has been no activity for 12 months. In addition, in order to impose any such fees, certain disclosures must be made to the consumer prior to purchase. The new law also prohibits expiration dates of less than five years, and requires clear and conspicuous disclosure of the expiration date, if any. In addition, gift certificates issued as part of an award, loyalty or promotional program (i.e., no money or other consideration is given) are, as is the case with many state laws, excluded. And speaking of state laws, the Act specifically does not pre-empt state laws that provide greater consumer protection.
What else should you know. First, plastic cards and payment code devices used solely for telephone services or that are reloadable, are not marketed or labeled as gift cards or certificates, not marketed to the general public, and issued in paper form only (including those that apply to tickets and events), are not covered by the requirements of the new Act. Second, the law authorizes the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, in consultation with the FTC, to develop requirements concerning the amount of dormancy fees that can be charged (only once each month), and to more carefully seek to define which provisions of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E apply in this context.
So, for states that have had no, or lesser, consumer protections, the Act clearly establishes a minimum federal threshold for the imposition of dormancy fees and the prohibition of expiration dates earlier than five years. For states that already have or may yet impose more stringent requirements, those requirements are specifically permitted under the Act, so you will still have to keep track of state requirements in this area.
If you need to know, you need to contact Keri Bruce or Joseph Rosenbaum – or your favorite Rimon attorney – who will be more than happy to help you.
Employees Off-Work, But Online
This post was written by E. David Krulewicz and Cindy Schmitt Minniti.
Facebook, MySpace and Twitter have become household names, a ubiquitous part of the daily lives of many and often a tool for keeping in touch with friends and family. These websites are increasingly being used by individuals to document their daily lives and activities, voice their concerns and post their opinions for the world to read and to respond. The business community has also turned to these “social media” websites as means for marketing their brands and, in some instances, for obtaining information about current employees and prospective job applicants. A series of recent cases reminds us there are significant risks related to the posting and/or use of information discovered on “social media” websites.
For example, in Pietrylo and Marino v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, a case pending in the Unites States District Court for the District of New Jersey, two individuals sued their former employer after they were terminated for posting complaints about their workplace on an invitation-only discussion forum on MySpace.com. Much to the employees’ surprise, managers from Hillstone Restaurant Group were able to access this discussion board (although the parties dispute whether the managers had a right to do so) and were less than pleased with what they read. The employees were quickly terminated and a lawsuit followed.
In their complaint, the former employees assert their employer not only violated state and federal Wiretap and Stored Communications Acts by accessing the invitation-only forum, but wrongfully terminated them in violation of New Jersey’s public policy favoring free expression and privacy as embodied in the U.S. and the New Jersey Constitutions. Their employer has denied the claims and asserts the plaintiffs were “at-will” employees who could be terminated for any reason or no reason at all.
Ultimately, the question of liability may hinge upon whether the employees had a right to privacy for statements made online and whether the employer has a right to make disciplinary decisions based on an employee’s off-duty conduct.
Although legal commentators and privacy advocates debate how the trial will unfold when the case goes to trial later this summer, they all agree the case highlights real- world issues that can follow an individual’s seemingly innocent decision to post his or her thoughts on a social networking website. This is far from an isolated incident – indeed, the sports media recently reported a similar incident involving the Philadelphia Eagles’ termination of a long-time employee for disparaging the team’s management and its decision to release a prominent player on his Facebook page.
While it is unclear if any of the companies in the cases above had a policy or provided instruction to their employees on these issues, it should not surprise you that increasingly business employers are finding they must do so. Clearly, before making decisions or taking action against employees for online, but off-duty conduct, employers should seek legal counsel from lawyers who understand these issues and can guide you in this dynamically evolving environment – where federal and state (and sometimes municipal or local) law may apply and little, if any, precedent currently exists. Worried? Need help? Need to understand more? Contact E. David Krulewicz or Cindy Schmitt Minniti or the Rimon lawyer with whom you work.
Update: Today, May 20th, after this story was posted, the U.S. House of Representatives also approved the bill regulating some common credit card and gift card industry practices. It is likely President Obama will sign the bill once it arrives on his desk.
Give Credit (Card), No Give a Gift (Card)! Why Not Give Both?
Although consumer credit regulation is hardly new – Regulation E, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Regulation Z and laws regulating disclosures, debt collection practices, billing statements and the like have been around for decades – for the first time in U.S. history, Federal legislation is tackling pricing, rate modifications, advertising disclosures and fees, and adding a gift card angle as well.
While the House has not yet passed this or any other version of the legislation, those in the know believe a similar, if not identical, bill will be approved by the House of Representatives and that the President is likely to sign it.
Are you a bank, payment card association, credit union or financial institution that issues credit cards or gift cards? Here are highlights of the bill that passed the Senate:
- When marketing, a card issuer would not be permitted to increase any advertised ‘teaser’ rates for at least a year after a new account was opened for the consumer, and promotional rates advertised to consumers must remain in effect for at least six month;
- Unless the credit-issuing institution can get proof that anyone under 21 can actually repay their credit card debt, credit cards can only be issued to individuals under the age of 21 if a parent, legal guardian or guarantor agrees in writing to be responsible for the debts;
- If a consumer pays more than the minimum balance due, the excess must be applied to the balance with the highest interest rate;
- Card issuers will not be allowed to change rates retroactively on existing balances (there is an exception where the consumer is past due by 60 days – which, I guess, presumes that when a consumer can’t afford to pay their balance within 60 days, it’s ok to raise their rates since they probably won’t be able to afford to pay a higher rate either);
- Bills for balances due must be sent at least three weeks (21 days) before their due date;
- Card issuers will no longer be able to charge additional fees to consumers for alternate payment mechanisms (e.g., by mail, telephone, online, electronic, wire transfers), unless the consumer requests and the issuer offers some type of ‘expedited’ service;
- Consumers must be asked if they want to allow ‘over-limit’ credit transactions and if they do not affirmatively consent, the card issuer will not be permitted to charge a fee if the issuer still authorizes the transaction (e.g., your credit limit is $1,000 and you charge something for $1,001 and the authorization system approves the transaction anyway);
- Changes in the terms and conditions that apply to consumer cardholders will require at least 45 days’ notice; and
- The minimum amount of time a gift card must remain valid for use will be 5 years. First, it is likely this will apply to gift cards that are consumer-oriented and where full value is paid, and not to discounted, bulk sales, non-consumer, incentive, employer or promotional gift cards – but then the legislation isn’t final yet, is it? Furthermore, the Federal legislation is not likely to preempt more consumer-friendly State law (e.g., California prohibits any expiration date on such gift cards), but it will place a minimum level of consumer protection against earlier expiration, even in States that have no applicable regulation.
There is also consideration being given to removing any current legal and contractual restrictions on merchants that would allow them to differentially price their products and services based on the incremental costs (or savings) of accepting different forms of payment. When credit and debit cards were scarce and cash was king (cash, as in ‘currency’), regulation and industry groups frowned upon differential pricing, arguing that allowing a merchant to charge more for the use of a credit card was discriminatory to the consumer – even though the cost of accepting such payment instruments was higher (the merchant pays a fee (discount rate) to the card-issuing enterprise for the privilege of accepting the particular brand of card). Furthermore, the growth of corporate and purchasing cards and the use of payment instruments in B2B transactions has resulted in situations where a manufacturer accepts a purchasing card (procurement-based credit card) in payment of sales to distributors, wholesalers and retailers – a fee is charged to the manufacturer for the card transaction. This chain continues until a consumer makes a retail purchase, and if any or all of these transactions involve branded payment instruments and not cash, travelers’ checks, bearer bonds or two goats and a chicken, today, a fee would most likely accrue on each payment-card transaction at each step of the way . . . significantly raising the cost to everyone and ultimately the consumer. Stay tuned.
So: Consumer Credit? Co-branded promotions? Loyalty Rewards Programs? Gift Cards? Premiums and Incentives? Retail Promotions? Payment Card Industry (PCI) Data Security Standards? Privacy & Data Protection? Identity Theft? Data Breach? Pre-Screening? Online Digital Payment Systems? Corporate Cards? Purchasing Cards? E-Commerce? Regulation E? Regulation Z? Statement Insert Advertising; Credit/Demographic Market Segmentation? Free? APR? Limited Time Offer?
Any of these sound familiar? It’s what we do? Our Advertising Technology & Media Law Group; our Financial Institutions Group; our Data Security and Identity Theft Group . . . need we say more . . . If you need help (or you are just over stimulated by the flurry of legislation, regulation and excitement), call us or email me at joseph.rosenbaum@rimonlaw.com. We can help.
Useless But Compelling Facts – May (CORRECTION)
Last month we broke new ground – one intended and the other completely took us by surprise. The expected break with tradition came as our blog format allowed us to use a visual clue for our Useless But Compelling Fact. We showed you this picture . . . .
and asked you to identify the person shown. Although we originally noted that “Unexpectedly, not a single person knew this was Charles Darwin.” We were WRONG. Stuck in the SPAM filter was one brilliant and completely correct answer “Charles Darwin” from John Donald, Senior Counsel at Apple! Congratulations John and given both the degree of difficulty and the fact that you were the only answer this month (trust me, a rarity), we’re sending you not one, but two prizes. Thanks.
And. . .we are leaving this month’s question up for the remainder of this month. What did Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln have in common (Hint: ‘neither are alive today’ is not the right answer.) Remember – please DON’T send your answers to the Legal Bytes blog, send them directly to me at joseph.rosenbaum@rimonlaw.com. Good luck.
Useless But Compelling Facts – May 2009
Since we stumped you last month and blogs are notorious for “thread continuity,” I’m going to continue this one and go one better . . .
This month we would like you to tell us what Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln have in common. Remember—please DO NOT send your answers to the Legal Bytes blog, send them directly to me at joseph.rosenbaum@rimonlaw.com. Good luck.
Useless But Compelling Facts – April 2009 Answer
Last month we broke new ground—twice! One time was intended, and the other took us completely by surprise. The expected break with tradition came as our blog format allowed us to use a visual clue for our Useless But Compelling Fact. We showed you this picture . . .
. . . and asked you to identify the person shown. Unexpectedly, not a single person knew this was Charles Darwin.