SEP
The DTSA will provide businesses with more effective new tools to protect their sensitive information from misappropriation. In the context of trade secrets, misappropriation is generally considered the acquisition of hidden information through some improper means . The broadly structured language of the DTSA extends its protection to “all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information” so long as (1) the owner has taken reasonable steps to keep the information secret and (2) the information derives its value from that secrecy. The DTSA largely tracks the concepts of trade secrets that have long existed in most states. But under the DTSA, plaintiffs will be able to bring claims for misappropriation of trade secrets in federal court.
Previously, trade secrets have been an outlier in the world of intellectual property. Unlike copyright, patent and trademark claims, which receive the wider benefit and protection of federal court jurisdiction, trade secret claims have mostly been litigated in state court. The problem with this has been that, given the diffuse and global nature of business and commerce, state courts are often not the best venue for intellectual property claims. If a misappropriation occurs across state or national borders, a federal court is better suited to address such jurisdictional conflicts.
To gain access to the DTSA, and federal court jurisdiction, all that is required is that the “trade secret is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.” This is generally a very low threshold, as most products and services these days are used or intended for use in at least interstate commerce – only the most localized of businesses would not be able to meet this minimal requirement.
The DTSA will confer on trade secret holders a greater ability to pursue misappropriation beyond the borders of the United States, and can even pursue remedies before the International Trade Commission. In addition, a secondary benefit gained from access to the federal court system is a potential for more uniform decisions and precedent than the more disparate and varied state courts decisions.
Another interesting development that the DTSA will usher in relates to injunction and damages. Injunctions are often sought in trade secret cases to prevent the information at issue from being disclosed. Previously, under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), which almost all states have adopted in some form or another, the injunction would end when the trade secret ceased to exist or after an amount of time necessary to stop any potential commercial advantage being gained from a misappropriation. The DTSA however contains no such limitation, which presumably will give courts more discretion in applying an extended injunction. Also, where the UTSA allows for double damages in cases of “willful and malicious misappropriation”, the language of the DTSA has upped this to treble damages.
Perhaps the biggest tool in the DTSA tool belt is the ability to seek ex parte civil seizures. What this means is that a plaintiff can, without giving a defendant notice, seek the seizure of property if the plaintiff can demonstrate that the defendant, or someone working in concert with the defendant, is likely to “destroy, move, hide, or otherwise make such matter inaccessible to the court”. This type of ex parte seizure is a powerful new tool that will likely allow trade secret holders to better combat harm associated with a misappropriation. And being a powerful tool, it may be subject to misuse among competitors.
Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys stay current on developments that may be important to their clients concerned about commercial and intellectual property issues. If you have questions about the DTSA or other aspects of trade secret or intellectual property protection, we would be glad to hear from you.
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.
To be eligible for registration on the Principal Register, certain marks, such as descriptive marks, surnames, geographic terms and certain types of trade dress, must acquire “secondary meaning.” “Secondary meaning” means that public primarily sees the mark as identifying the source of the product rather than the product itself. Registration on the Principal Register gives a mark’s owner several benefits, including:
Marks that are actually in use in the United States, but that do not qualify for the Principal Register because they have not yet acquired secondary meaning, may be registered on the Supplemental Register. As you might expect, registration on the Supplemental Register does not provide the same protection as registration on the Principal Register. For example, registration on the Supplemental Register does not create a presumption of ownership or validity; give others constructive notice of ownership; support a later claim of incontestability; imply an exclusive right to use the mark; or allow the mark’s owner to request that products bearing the mark be excluded from import into the United States.
So why bother with the Supplemental Register? The primary benefit of a registration on the Supplemental Register is that a subsequent application for a confusingly similar mark for related goods may be refused by the USPTO. The owner of a Supplemental Registration may also use the registered ® symbol on the products listed in the registration. Further, a registration on the Supplemental Register allows the owner to register the mark in other countries that offer reciprocal trademark rights. And, in the event that a Supplemental Registration’s owner is successful in an infringement action, the owner may be entitled to certain monetary and equitable relief that might otherwise be unavailable.
Given the relative advantages of ownership of a registration on the Principal Register, an applicant should always seek registration on the Principal Register first. But, if the USPTO refuses registration for lack of secondary meaning, an applicant should consider amending the application to the Supplemental Register to ensure the protections discussed above. Keep in mind that if a mark’s owner believes that the mark registered on the Supplemental Register has acquired distinctiveness, a new application for registration on the Principal Register is required.
Conkle, Kremer & Engel assists companies in all aspects of intellectual property protection, including U.S. and international trademark registrations and enforcement of trademark rights.
Posted by:
This problem has become so widespread and severe that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) published a list of known international trademark registration scams. The USPTO keeps a similar scammer database, identifying the following organizations that sent non-USPTO solicitations, prompting consumer complaints to the USPTO:
In October 2014, a New York firm successfully won a lawsuit against “Patent & Trademark Agency LLC” for unfair competition and deceptive marketing practices, putting the company out of business. A Final Consent Judgment was entered against Patent & Trademark Agency LLC, by which it agreed to permanently discontinue marketing and selling trademark registration or renewal services in the United States.
If you receive any unexpected email or correspondence regarding a trademark registration, you should immediately contact the USPTO or your counsel to verify the veracity of the sender and the correspondence. Conkle, Kremer & Engel assists individuals and companies in all aspects of intellectual property protection, including the filing and maintenance of trademark registrations – and we know how to discriminate legitimate vendors from scammers.
DINP is found is many soft plastic and vinyl products. DINP is used as a plasticizer in a wide variety of products including apparel, footwear, sporting goods, gloves, fashion accessories, school supplies, shower curtains, bath mats and other home accessories, garden hoses, toys, vinyl flooring, and electrical wire and cables.
DINP was added to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals on December 20, 2013 as a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer. By law, the warning requirements go into effect one year after the listing. Accordingly, the Proposition 65 warning requirement for products causing an exposure to DINP will start on December 20, 2014.
Businesses that manufacture, sell, or distribute products in California containing DINP are required to provide a warning to consumers that the product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer. The warning is required unless the exposure is so low as to pose no significant risk to cancer. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has not established a safe harbor level for DINP.
The phthalate DINP is presently banned in certain children’s toys and products in concentrations of greater than 0.1 percent under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008. Other phthalates that are already on the Proposition 65 chemical list include di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP), di-n-hexyl phthalate (DnHP), butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) and di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP).
Companies that have not reformulated their products to remove DINP, or that fail to provide a Proposition 65 warning on products containing DINP, by December 20, 2014 are at risk of receiving a “Notice of Violation” from private enforcers seeking tens of thousands of dollars in penalties and attorneys’ fees. A Notice of Violation typically precedes a lawsuit for violation of Proposition 65.
Conkle, Kremer & Engel has extensive experience in the area of Proposition 65. CK&E provides businesses with legal counseling and guidance on compliance with Proposition 65. CK&E also regularly assists businesses in responding to Notices of Violation and defending claims for violation of Proposition 65 in litigation.
Confronting product counterfeiters can be an expensive, labor intensive and sometimes frustrating task, particularly when undertaken as a solo effort. The panel sponsored and moderated by CK&E will highlight strategies for combining the strength of private enforcement and available public sector resources to combat counterfeiters using all available tools. The panel will assess when and how to use civil resources in partnership with criminal enforcement for the most effective and cost-effective assault on product counterfeiters. The panel will address practical steps to best leverage the strengths and resources of both arms against the scourge of counterfeiters, illustrating points with real world experiences.
Join us and learn how to get the most bang for your brand protection buck in the battle to defeat counterfeiters. CK&E is proud to again sponsor this important brand protection event.
It is virtually impossible to get through a day without seeing the “right of publicity” in action. Everywhere, there are advertisements featuring photographs of professional models and celebrities of every variety published to sell all types of products and services. It is strange, then, that no statute or case precedent in California specifically established that models and celebrities have the ability to assign or license those publicity rights for proper use and for enforcement if their likenesses are misused. Until now.
On September 12, 2014, the California Court of Appeal agreed with the arguments of Eric Engel of the Conkle Firm (working with co-counsel at Hall & Lim), and established the first published precedent in California that explicitly holds that the right of publicity is assignable. In Timed Out, LLC v. Youabian, Inc., Case No. B242820, the Second District Court of Appeal finally settled a long-simmering dispute that had confused many lower courts: Whether the right of publicity is a “personal right” that can only be exercised during lifetime by the individual owner, or whether the right of publicity is a form of intellectual property that can be freely assigned and licensed to others for use and enforcement.
The dispute had its origin many years ago, when an influential tort law treatise by famed Professor Prosser observed that the right of publicity historically derived from the “right of privacy.” The classic form of the “right of privacy” is protection against hurt feelings and injury to personal reputation that can occur when personal information about a private individual is published without her consent. That type of injury is considered personal in nature and cannot generally be assigned. But, as the Timed Out decision observed, the right of publicity has evolved away from its origin into a distinctly commercial and non-personal interest.
The right of publicity is now virtually the opposite of the original right of privacy: The right of publicity is the ability of a person to control the commercial value of the use of her image and information. Timed Out recognizes that a person’s likeness, voice, signature or other identifying characteristics can have substantial commercial value, regardless of whether the person is a celebrity and regardless of whether the commercial value of the identified person’s “persona” is created by happenstance or by investment of great time and effort. Timed Out finally establishes that the value created is a form of property, freely assignable by the person who owns it.
The Court of Appeal also resolved a separate important issue that is frequently in dispute in right of publicity actions: Whether federal copyright law subsumes and preempts right of publicity claims. Timed Out v. Youabian established that the right of publicity is distinct from copyright interests in a photograph or image, and that right of publicity claims generally are not preempted by federal copyright laws.
The effect of Timed Out LLC v. Youabian, Inc. for models, celebrities, manufacturers, advertisers and resellers is to finally establish that the right of publicity can be licensed and assigned to third parties, and enforced by third parties such as Timed Out, and that such rights are independent of federal copyright interests. That means models and celebrities no longer have to make the difficult decision whether it is worth their time, expense and effort to pursue claims when their publicity rights are violated – they can assign the affected publicity rights to agencies such as Timed Out to pursue the claims. Manufacturers, advertisers and resellers will no longer waste effort and time attempting to determine whether the publicity rights were assignable. They can and should instead focus on establishing whether they had the necessary rights to use the image, photograph, likeness, voice or other identifying characteristic of the “persona” of the model or celebrity. This puts a premium on making sure that any “model releases” obtained prior to advertising are well-written and appropriate for each particular use of the model or celebrity’s photograph, image, likeness or other identifying features.
Conkle, Kremer & Engel counsels and helps clients avoid these kinds of issues with effective model releases, licenses and assignments. Timed Out v. Youabian demonstrates that CK&E is also at the forefront of enforcing the right of publicity when model and celebrity rights are violated.
With the increased consumer demand for natural and organic products, a growing number of companies in the beauty industry are drawing on biodiversity for its rich variety of native ingredients and as a way to differentiate their products. The use of exotic ingredients sourced from countries rich in biodiversity means that companies need to be aware of the Nagoya Protocol and the country-specific “Access and Benefit Sharing” laws and regulations that exist and are being enacted. The use of indigenous ingredients in hair care, skincare and cosmetics formulations – such as baobab oil extracted from the fruits of the baobab trees found across Africa or katafray bark extract from the katafray trees of Madagascar – may be a violation of the Nagoya Protocol if Access and Benefit Sharing requirements are not met.
The Nagoya Protocol is an international treaty focused on Access and Benefit-Sharing, which was adopted in 2010 by the United Nations’ Nagoya, Japan Convention on Biological Diversity. The Nagoya Protocol arose from the interest of national governments to conserve and promote sustainable use of their countries’ biodiversity and protect against commercial biopiracy. The purpose of the Nagoya Protocol is to support fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge.
Generally, the Nagoya Protocol requires that access to a participating country’s genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge be subject to the “prior informed consent” of the party providing such resources. The Nagoya Protocol also requires the sharing of the benefits arising from the commercialization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge with the owners of biodiversity, including the local communities and the indigenous people, on “mutually agreed terms.”
The Nagoya Protocol itself establishes only international norms and a framework for Access and Benefit Sharing measures, and does not impose Access and Benefit Sharing laws itself. That is left to national legislation, and requires the contracting parties to implement their own Access and Benefit Sharing measures and to designate a competent national authority on ABS. Many countries, including Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica and India, already have national enabling laws and regulations.
Personal care product companies in particular also should be aware that their marketing and advertising of the products as containing native ingredients or drawing on traditional knowledge could subject them to a claim of biopiracy by national governments, local communities, and even non-governmental organizations.
Although the United States is not a contracting party to the Convention on Biological Diversity or the Nagoya Protocol, companies in the United States whose products utilize genetic resources or traditional knowledge from a member state, or are sold in a member state, must comply with the access and benefit sharing requirements. It is imperative for companies to exercise due diligence to ensure that their raw material or ingredient suppliers have obtained prior informed consent for access to genetic resources or associated traditional knowledge used in their products, and mutually agreed terms for the sharing of benefits.
As a leader in providing legal services to the personal care products industry, CK&E can assist companies in instituting internal policies and procedures to help ensure compliance with the Nagoya Protocol. CK&E will continue to monitor and provide updates about developments in the Nagoya Protocol. The first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Nagoya Protocol will be held in October 2014 in Pyeongchang, South Korea, concurrently with the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Full text of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization. The countries that have ratified or acceded to the Nagoya Protocol to date are: