The Conkle Firm Advises BIMA Participants on IP and Regulatory Issues

Posted by:

Once again, Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys Mark Kremer and Kim Sim have been honored to participate in and contribute to the revolutionary Beauty Industry Market Access (BIMA) program, led by beauty industry guru Patty Schmucker of American Made Beauty.  BIMA is a multi-day intensive domestic and international trade and business education program taught by leading health and beauty industry experts. BIMA participants focus on key principles essential to expand their personal care products businesses both in the U.S. and overseas.

Mark contributes to the BIMA educational program by teaching modules on domestic and foreign intellectual property protection and international distribution agreements.   Participants are particularly advised about cost-effective methods of protecting their intellectual property internationally, such as international trademark registrations through the Madrid System, which can offer a centralized application process for trademark registration in over 90 countries based on a brand owner’s domestic application or registration.  Kim adds her expertise in domestic regulatory compliance, including Prop 65, California Organic Products Act (COPA), Safe Cosmetics Act, California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations and survey requirements, and federal and state Made in the USA regulations.

BIMA is sponsored by Universal Companies, which has been in the beauty industry for over 18 years and is an important distributor of more than 300 brands in the spa, salon, esthetics and massage market, as well as their own proprietary brands.

In partnership with the California Trade Alliance (CTA), access to international trade shows are available to companies that participate in the BIMA programs. BIMA participants can exhibit in the popular California Pavilion regularly sponsored by CTA at Cosmoprof Bologna and Cosmoprof Hong Kong, among the world’s largest and most important beauty industry trade shows.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

PCPC’s California Lobby Day was a Great Success

Posted by:

On April 12, 2016, Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorney John Conkle flew to Sacramento to be part of Personal Care Products Council’s delegation for California Lobby Day. The Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) advocates for the personal care products, beauty and cosmetics industry at federal, state and local levels on legislative priorities and regulatory issues.

Conferences held in the Governor’s Council Room featured presentations by Nancy McFadden (Executive Secretary to Governor Edmund G. Brown), Graciela Castillo-Krings (Deputy Legislative Secretary to Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr.), Dr. Meredith Williams (Deputy Director of Safer Products and Workplaces Program Director, Department of Toxics & Substance Control), and Elise Rothschild (Deputy Director of the Hazardous Waste Management Program, Department of Toxics & Substance Control).  John joined teams of PCPC staff and member companies who met with legislative offices to discuss the economic impact of the industry and legislation pending before the California legislature. The day’s events were capped with a reception at which PCPC staff and members were joined by California State Legislators.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel is a proud and active member of the Personal Care Products Council.  CK&E attorneys are glad to lend their legal expertise to the PCPC and its member companies by participating in PCPC conferences and industry advocacy efforts..

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

The Conkle Firm Joins PCPC California Lobby Day 2016

Posted by:

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorney John Conkle is proud to have again been invited to join the Personal Care Products Council’s delegation for California Lobby Day, an annual PCPC event held at the Capitol in Sacramento, California.  The Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) represents the personal care products, beauty and cosmetics industry at the federal, state and local level on issues of interest to the industry.

California Lobby Day represents a unique opportunity for industry leaders to meet with legislators including Leadership, key Committee Chairs and members of the Legislative Women’s Caucus, state officials, and their staff members and to engage in open discussions about legislative and regulatory issues affecting the personal care products industry.  The day is expected to include briefings in the Governor’s Office by the executive department personnel and meetings with staff in the offices of members of the State Legislature, as well as a reception for members of the California Legislature, personnel from the Office of Governor Brown, and PCPC members and staff.  Among those with whom John is expecting to meet are Nancy McFadden (Executive Secretary to Governor Brown); Carol Monahan-Cummings (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment); Meredith Williams (Deputy Director of Safer Consumer Products and Workplaces Program, Department of Toxic Substances Control); and Panorea Advis (Director of the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development).

Conkle, Kremer & Engel is proud to be an active member of the Personal Care Products Council.  Over the years, CK&E has provided legal expertise to the PCPC and its member companies by presenting at conferences organized by the PCPC on legal and regulatory matters, as well as representing many PCPC member companies.  CK&E has also been a frequent sponsor of conferences organized by the PCPC and has participated in numerous events hosted by the PCPC.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

No Fooling! On April 1, Almost All Employers are Subject to New Employment Regulations in California

Posted by:

Effective April 1, 2016, new regulations of the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) impose stringent new anti-discrimination and anti-harassment requirements on almost all employers having any employees in California.  Unlike in the past, the new amendments to regulations under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) apply to any employer having five or more “employees,” any of whom are located in California.  The word “employees” is important, because the new FEHA regulations count toward the minimum of five “employees” unpaid interns, volunteers and persons out on leave from active employment.  Further, it appears that this new FEHA regulation is intended to apply even to employers with headquarters outside of California if any of their employees are located in California.

The FEHA regulatory amendments require all affected employers to have written policies prohibiting workplace discrimination and harassment.  The policies must apply to prohibit discrimination and harassment by co-workers, who are made individually liable for their own violations, and by third parties such as vendors in the workplace.  The regulations demand that the written policy list all currently-protected categories protected under FEHA:  Race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, and military or veteran status.  Prohibited “sex discrimination” includes discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding and related medical conditions.  Interestingly, the regulations also prohibit discrimination against employment applicants holding a special California driver’s license issued to persons without proof of legal presence in the United States.  It is not yet clear how this will work in conjunction with the employer’s existing Federal obligation to confirm eligibility for employment.

The employer’s written policy must specify a confidential complaint process that satisfies a number of criteria.  Workplace retaliation for making good faith complaints of perceived discrimination or harassment is prohibited.  The written policy must be publicized to all employees, with tracking of its receipt by employees.  If 10% of the employer’s work force speaks a language other than English, the written policy must be translated to that language.

Further, the new regulations attempt to resolve a number of uncertainties about who is protected, specifying that both males and females are protected from gender discrimination, and requiring that transgender persons be treated and provided facilities consistent with their gender identity.  There are many other changes, such as a new entitlement to four months for pregnancy leave that is not required to be taken continuously.  If an employer has more than 50 employees, there are additional requirements, such as periodic sexual harassment prevention training for supervisors.

Employers operating in California are well advised to review their policies and practices, and to consult with qualified counsel regarding changes that may be required.  Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys help clients remain compliant with laws, regulations and case developments affecting employers in California.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

The Conkle Firm Participates in ICMAD Regulatory Forum

Posted by:

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorney Eric S. Engel attended the ICMAD Regulatory Forum in Newport Beach, California on February 17, 2016.  The Forum has been an annual event for more than a decade, and offers CK&E an opportunity to meet with professionals in the personal care products industry to discuss important legislative and regulatory issues affecting the industry.  Among the topics of concern to the beauty industry, on which CK&E stays current through participation in the Forum and otherwise, include labeling and advertising claims, EU labeling and regulatory compliance, and California regulatory compliance, including Prop 65 issues, California Safe Cosmetics Act and California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Safer Consumer Products regulations, and the potential for class action liability.  One topic that generated particular industry interest was the pending “Personal Care Products Safety Act” introduced by Senators Feinstein and Collins.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

Labels Matter: Consumer Class Actions are Available for Organic Labeling Violations

Posted by:

The California Supreme Court has affirmed that “labels matter” to both buyers and sellers of consumer products. “They serve as markers for a host of tangible and intangible qualities consumers may come to associate with a particular source or method of production.” California protects consumers from mislabeling through a number of laws, including possible class action lawsuits under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code §§ 1750 et seq.), unfair competition laws (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.) and false advertising laws (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq.)

Aside from California’s general false labeling laws, there are specific laws and regulations regarding organic product labeling. The California Organic Products Act (COPA), generally requires that multi-ingredient cosmetics labeled or sold as organic contain at least 70% organically produced ingredients. But COPA is designed to work in concert with Federal regulations that direct baseline standards for production, labeling and sale of organic products. The California Supreme Court recently addressed whether the Federal regulations of organic products in some manner preempt or supersede California’s consumer protection laws, so that only the very limited Federal remedies can be pursued when there are alleged violations of organic labeling laws.

In Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc., the California Supreme Court determined that California’s general laws prohibiting labeling misrepresentation do not conflict with the Federal laws concerning organic production, labeling and sale, but rather complement those Federal laws by allowing additional remedies to be pursued when those laws are broken by fraudulent organic product labeling. The Supreme Court observed that “permitting state consumer fraud actions would advance, not impair” the goals of providing “a level playing field” to manufacturers of organic products and “enhance consumer confidence in meaningful labels and reduce the distribution network’s reluctance to carry organic products.” From this perspective, where products are fraudulently mislabeled as organic, “the prosecution of such fraud, whether by public prosecutors where resources and state laws permit, or through civil suits by individuals or groups of consumers, can only serve to deter mislabeling and enhance consumer confidence.”

The result for manufacturers, distributors and resellers is that organic product labeling can create concerns at multiple levels, including federal and state regulatory liability, and class actions under strong state consumer protection laws. All those involved in the chain of manufacturing and distribution of products labeled as organic should consult with experienced counsel to protect themselves from potential adverse outcomes that can come from several directions. Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys are well versed in helping their clients proactively avoid and resolve such problems.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

CK&E to Present on Emerging Legal Issues at PCPC Emerging Issues Conference

Posted by:

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys John Conkle and Kim Sim will once address current legal trends and developments in the cosmetic and personal care products industry at the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC)’s Emerging Issues Conference on November 18, 2015 at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Marina Del Rey, California.

John and Kim will present on “Emerging Legal Issues in the Cosmetic and Personal Care Products Industry.”  The topics to be discussed include recent developments involving enforcement of prohibitions on container slack fill, trends in lawsuits and agency action concerning advertising, an update on the California Air Resources Board’s ongoing Consumer and Commercial Products Survey, as well as a discussion about protecting companies from counterfeiting and cybersquatting in the digital age.

CK&E’s presentation from last year’s Emerging Issues Conference can be found here.

The annual event by the PCPC – the leading national trade association for the cosmetic and personal care products industry – is a must-attend for beauty companies across the country, with its unique focus on the many challenges that are on the horizon for the beauty industry.

This year’s agenda will also include updates from the PCPC on key issues for the industry and from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control on the California Safer Consumer Products and Workplaces regulations, as well as presentations on emerging issues in the Americas, safety standards for cosmetics, current and future challenges for Proposition 65.  In addition, Deputy Attorney General Robert Sumner is slated to speak at the conference.

CK&E is pleased to once again participate in this annual event and to offer its experience and insight into legal issues affecting the industry to the PCPC and its members.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

Seriously – Aloe Vera Whole Leaf Extract May be a Prop 65 Chemical

Posted by:

We’ve recently written a series of articles about “natural” personal care products that may inadvertently run afoul of Prop 65 regulations.  You may be surprised to learn that such “natural” products may include ingredients that have been identified as “chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer” under Proposition 65.

One of the more surprising of the proposed Prop 65 ingredients is Aloe Vera Whole Leaf Extract.  On April 23, 2015, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) issued its notice of intent to list Aloe Vera Whole Leaf Extract as a chemical known to cause cancer. Although more than 420 species of Aloe plant exist, the specific form that is the subject of the proposed listing is: “Aloe Vera whole leaf extract” which “consists of the liquid portion of the Aloe Vera leaf and is a natural constituent of the Aloe barbadensis Miller plant.”  Fortunately, OEHHA specifically excludes Aloe Vera decolorized whole leaf extract, Aloe Vera gel, Aloe Vera gel extract and Aloe Vera latex, which are the more common forms used in personal care products.

When it issued the notice of intent to list Aloe Vera Whole Leaf Extract, OEHHA also issued a notice of intent to list Goldenseal Root Powder as a chemical known to cause cancer. OEHHA identified goldenseal root powder in the proposed listing as “the powdered dried roots and underground stems of goldenseal plants” and declared it to be “a natural constituent of the goldenseal plant.” OEHHA further specifies that Goldenseal is also known as Hydrastis Canadensis, orangeroot, Indian turmeric, and curcuma. Fortunately, OEHHA further specifies that the spice turmeric (Curcuma longa Linn.), frequently found in personal care products such as face and body lotions and cleansers, is not proposed for listing. The form of goldenseal root extract that is contemplated for addition to the Prop 65 list is most often used in the form of nutritional supplements.

Even when manufacturing or distributing “natural” products, beauty companies should take care to review the products’ current formulations to determine whether they contain an ingredient that is or may be on the Proposition 65 list, or whether any of their products contain an ingredient that may cause an exposure to a Prop 65 chemical.  It may be vital to work closely with manufacturers or suppliers, and have strong contracts to protect against Proposition 65 liability. Companies should be pro-active and consider reformulation if a proposed or actual Prop 65 chemical is being used.  And if a Proposition 65 Notice of Violation is received, affected companies should promptly contact counsel with experience in successfully resolving Prop 65 claims.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

Natural Products are Not Immune from Prop 65 – Beta Myrcene is a Listed Chemical

Posted by:

The Conkle firm recently wrote about personal care product ingredients that are found in nature that are nonetheless among those that have been identified by the state of California to be “chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer” under California’s Proposition 65.

On March 27, 2015, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) added beta-myrcene (CAS No. 123-35-3) as a chemical known to cause cancer under Proposition 65.   This means that enforcement actions may commence starting March 27, 2016. Beta-myrcene is a natural constituent of food plants, such as hop, bay, verbena, lemongrass, citrus, pomegranate, and carrot, and of their juices and essential oils. Beta-myrcene is used as a fragrance in cosmetics and soaps, many of which are positioned  as “natural” products.  Other ingredients that are popularly used in “natural” beauty products are joining the list – check back for our additional blog posts on those in the near future.

In addition to such ingredients, businesses should be careful not to overlook diethanolamine (DEA), coconut oil diethanolamine (cocamide DEA) and benozphenone – three chemicals that became subject to enforcement action in June 2013 and which remain a favorite of Prop 65 plaintiffs. Thousands of companies, with particular focus on beauty industry manufacturers, distributors and retailers have been hit with Notices of Violation over these chemicals.

Beauty companies should review their current formulations to determine whether any of their products contain an ingredient that is or may be on the Proposition 65 list, or whether any of their products contain an ingredient that may cause an exposure to a Proposition 65 chemical. Companies should work closely with their manufacturer or supplier, and have strong contracts to insulate them from Proposition 65 liabilities. Companies should also consider being pro-active by reformulating chemicals out of their products early on, if possible.  If a Notice of Violation is received, contact counsel with experience in successfully resolving Prop 65 claims.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

Beauty Companies Beware: Natural Ingredients May be Subject to Prop 65

Posted by:

Personal care product companies are riding the wave of strong consumer interest in “natural” products.  However, going “natural” can come at a cost:  In addition to concerns about drawing consumer claims that the term is being used in a potentially deceptive manner, there are other hidden risks to manufacturers, distributors and resellers of “natural” products. Perhaps surprisingly, a number of chemicals that are commonly found as a natural constituent of plants has been or is about to be classified as “chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer” under California’s Proposition 65.

Pulegone is among the plant extracts found on the Prop 65 list.  Pulegone is a natural constituent of various plants, including mint and other herbs, and of their essential oils.  Pulegone was added to the Prop 65 list on April 18, 2014 as a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer, and it became subject to enforcement actions a year later, on April 18, 2015.  Prop 65 bounty hunter Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation wasted no time in sending out a 60-Day Notice of Violation to businesses whose products involve exposure to this chemical.  It only took two days for the first Notice of Violation over exposure to pulegone to be served on businesses around the country.  A Notice of Violation is often a pre-cursor to a lawsuit.  The Notice of Violation claims consumer and occupational exposures to pulegone through use in products of pennyroyal oil.

The requirements of Proposition 65 are deceptively simple – provide a clear and reasonable warning if the use of the product results in an exposure to one or more of the 800+ chemicals on the Prop 65 list of known carcinogens and reproductive toxins.  But the penalties, fees and damage to business reputation for failing to comply can be severe:  Under Proposition 65, the civil penalties for failing to provide a clear and reasonable warning prior to exposure can reach up to $2,500 per violation per day, in addition to payment of an enterprising plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees.  Wherever they are located, manufacturers, distributors and retailers can be liable for Prop 65 violations, and the sale of even one product that may cause an exposure to a Prop 65 chemical is subject to zealous pursuit by Prop 65 plaintiffs.  Businesses are well advised to consult with counsel who are familiar with Prop 65 concerns and can help them proactively get ahead of the Prop 65 curve or successfully resolve claims in the event a Notice of Violation is received.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0
Page 5 of 10 «...34567...»