Effective March 12, 2024, New York Labor Law prohibits employers from requiring employees and job applicants to provide information about their personal accounts. If you think this sounds familiar, you are right. This idea has been in place in various states for years; now New York is joining in! Under the new legislation, “personal accounts” are broadly defined. It means “an account or profile on an electronic medium where users may create, share, and view user-generated content, including uploading or downloading videos or still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant messages, or internet website profiles used exclusively for personal purposes.” Specifically, Employers may not require employees or job applicants to: disclose the username, password, or “other authentication information” for accessing personal accounts; access a “personal account in the presence of the employer;” or “reproduce in any manner photographs, videos, or other information contained within a personal account.” However, nothing in the law prevents employers from: Accepting voluntary friend requests sent from an employee or applicant (although such actions may not be wise!); Accessing public social media accounts; Accessing information about an employee or applicant that can be obtained without any access information; Accessing information “for the purposes of obtaining reports of misconduct or investigating misconduct, photographs, video, messages, or other information that is voluntarily shared by an employee, client, or other third party that the employee subject to such report or investigation has voluntarily given access to contained within such employee’s personal account.” If your strategy is to argue that in response to an employer request, the applicant or employee “voluntarily” gave permission, that may be a very tough burden to meet! Employers who ask applicants or employees to share their social media accounts should proceed with caution. This area of law in New York is new and quickly evolving. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560    

Attention all Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan borrowers, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is combing through PPP loan records to identify borrowers who committed fraud related to the program, and they are not alone.  The U.S. Small Business Administration (the “SBA”) is auditing all PPP loans of $2 million or more, and the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) is investigating and prosecuting a number of fraud cases related to the misuse of PPP funds. How Did We Get Here? Many of us will recall how the PPP saved millions of small businesses from financial ruin.  The program was a cornerstone of the CARES Act, which provided $2.2 trillion in economic aid in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic.  The program was designed to provide a financial life raft to employers trying to survive the pandemic. One of the few requirements of PPP was a minimum of 60% of each loan needed to be used for payroll expenses, with the balance being used for certain other related business expenses. Now we are learning the program was wrought with fraud. It appears to be one of the greatest victims of frauds ever perpetrated on the federal government with billions of dollars being improperly used. In fact, the SBA estimates of the 11.8 million PPP loans totaling $800 billion there was in excess of $64 billion in fraud across 17% of the loans.  This has led to thousands of investigations with the DOJ bringing charges against hundreds of individuals with many more cases pending. Just the Beginning The SBA estimates there will be thousands more investigations and related prosecutions.  This issue has gotten so much attention that Congress has increased the statute of limitations for prosecuting cases of fraud related to PPP borrowing to ten (10) years. Also, the government is investigating these cases even though the loan has been forgiven. Closing Thoughts If you’re wondering if you should worry, the answer is it depends. If you are part of that urban legend of someone who took out the loan, and used the proceeds to buy a Ferrari while closing down your business, you should be worried. If you are part of the approximate 80% who followed the rules, you should be fine. If you question where you stand, call competent counsel so you can sleep peacefully at night. Our hope is the investigations will be fair, abusers get caught and the well-intentioned are fine, but only time will tell. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state, and federal employment laws.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560.

Whistleblowers can blow their whistles a little louder tonight. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling, Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, decided that an employee may prove a whistleblower retaliation claim without showing that their employer acted with retaliatory intent. As a result, it is now easier for employees to succeed on whistleblower retaliation claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and probably beyond.   The Case In Murray, an employee, Trevor Murray, had worked for UBS as a research strategist. His role required him to certify his reports to UBS customers were independently produced. UBS terminated Murray shortly after he informed his supervisor that two leaders of the UBS trading desk were changing his reports thus undoing the “independent” nature of the reports. Murray filed a whistleblower case against UBS. After extensive legal maneuvering, the case boiled down to a singular issue: do whistleblowers need to prove that their employer had retaliatory intent?   The Outcome The Supreme Court decided that adding an intent requirement to whistleblower claims was imprudent: whistleblower’s need only prove that their protected activity was a contributing factor in the retaliation. Moreover, the Court said, “[the law’s] text does not reference or include a ‘retaliatory intent’ requirement, and the [law’s] framework cannot be squared with such a requirement.” This is another example of the Court following a strict interpretation of a statute, which is often a common theme for this Supreme Court.   The Takeaway The Murray decision clarifies that employees seeking whistleblower protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act are not required to prove any specific intent behind their employer’s decision to retaliate against them for protected activity. Instead, a whistleblower only needs to demonstrate their protected activity contributed to their termination, after which the burden shifts to the employer to prove they would have terminated the employee even without considering the protected activity. The heightened burden on employers is likely to raise the cost of defending these claims and makes winning that much harder. Also, while the case addresses the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, it will likely spill over to many other whistleblower cases. As such, taking appropriate/legal action against whistleblowers will be that much harder. Using skilled counsel can help companies best avoid liability. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest state and federal employment laws. The subject matter of this post can be very technical. It is also very fact specific. Our goal is to alert you to some of the new laws and trends which may impact your business.  It is not intended to serve as legal advice. We encourage you to seek competent legal counsel before implementing any of the new policies or practices discussed above.  If we can be of assistance, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560.  

BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP INFORMATION REPORTING CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT SUMMARY One of the unique and often attractive features of a Limited Liability Company can be anonymity.  In most states, formation and registration of an LLC does not require disclosure of the owners or officers.  For various reasons, legitimate and not so legitimate, the owners of a business may not want to broadcast their ownership.  Whether there are genuine concerns regarding privacy and nefarious desires to avoid civil and/or criminal liability, people have availed themselves of this feature.  As such, it can be difficult to identify assets to enforce judgements or confirm net worth in the civil context.  Additionally, it can be difficult to trace financial and criminal wrongdoing to the actual bad actors. The Federal Government has decided to make things a little easier for itself by creating the Financial Crimes-Enforcement Network or FinCEN.  Try saying that five times fast!  In summary, the U.S. Treasury Department will require the vast majority of LLCs along with C and S corporations to report specific information about the business.  This will include information identifying the ownership of the company.  This is not necessarily a new thing for the shareholders of S and C corporations, but this will be a big change for the members of LLCs.   THE RUNDOWN Authority               United States Department of the Treasury Corporate Transparency Act (31 USC 5336(b)) Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Rule   Deadline                  January 1, 2024-January 1, 2025 for entities formed before January 1, 2024 Within 30 days of formation for  entities formed on or after January 1, 2024   Who Must Comply   Any entity that had to file a formation document with a state authority as part of its formation or registration as a foreign entity doing business in the United States.                    YES–Corporations (C, S, B[1] and P[2]), Limited Liability Companies, Limited Partnerships, Limited Liability Partnerships[3].                    NO—Sole Proprietors, General Partnerships. Exemptions                23 Categories of Exemptions and Exceptions to the rule, including inactive entities, nonprofits, entities that are already subject to federal reporting and regulations, financial institutions, and government entities. Corporate Information       Legal Name Trade Names or D/B/A Names Address Formation State TIN/EIN Ownership Information       Beneficial Owners. Owners with at least 25% ownership or who have substantial control the company directly or indirectly. Legal Name DOB Home Address Driver’s License, State ID, or Passport Number Picture of said ID   Duty to Update          Within 30 days of any change or need to correct information.   Failure to Comply     Civil liability $500/day Criminal penalty up to $10,000 and/or 2 years in jail   THE SOLUTION Resources              FinCEN

The Occupational Safety Health Administration (“OSHA”) and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) recently joined forces through a new Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”). Their goal, to further enhance collaboration between the two agencies during investigations and enforcement actions against employers. The move is expected to further blur the lines between the two agencies and the laws they look to enforce. The likely result is increased unfair labor practice charges filed with the NLRB and citations from OSHA. In a joint press release, the agencies hailed the MOU because many worker efforts to improve safety and health in their workplaces are protected under both the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OSH Act”) and the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”, the NLRA and OSH Act, collectively referred to as the “Acts”). The NLRB and OSHA have historically engaged in cooperative efforts and have entered into formal Memoranda of Understandings to engage in interagency coordination since 1975. Last month’s MOU allows the agencies to more broadly share information, conduct cross-training for staff at each agency, partner on investigative efforts within each agency’s authority, and enforce anti-retaliation provisions. Specifically, the MOU expands upon a previously proposed OSHA rule that allows employees to select an outside third party to accompany an OSHA compliance safety and health officer (the “CSHO”) during on-site inspections. Current regulations limit this choice of who can accompany the CSHO to only current employees or a third party with specialized safety knowledge.  However, the newly proposed rule will significantly broaden who is permitted to attend such an investigation by allowing any third-party representative “reasonably necessary” for the inspection. Does this mean any union representative is “reasonably necessary?” Time will tell, but you can be sure that is the union’s interpretation.   What does this mean to you and your Business?   It means, among other things, employees could designate a union official to attend the inspection as their third-party representative even if the employees are not currently unionized, and even if the union representative has no safety experience.   The MOU encourages the exchange of information between the agencies, including the referrals of complaints, as well as investigative files. Further, the MOU guides OSHA to advise employees who miss OSHA deadlines for claims (which are only a matter of days) to file a ULP with the NLRB instead (and use their six-month deadline).  This collaboration even goes as far as fostering cross-training each agency’s employees to enforce the other’s statute.   Additionally, the MOU goes on to have the NLRB and OSHA commit to coordinating investigations and inspections to “facilitate enforcement actions.”   This last piece is a real concern for employers as it poses the risk that the NLRB may be provided with information beyond its usual reach, which could lead to the potential of simultaneous filing of ULP charges and OSHA complaints.   For companies currently dealing with union activity, the MOU heightens the need to stay vigilant regarding workplace safety.  Companies with active or potential union engagement may witness employees leveraging OSHA as an additional pain point for owners.   We encourage all employers to familiarize themselves with their rights under both Acts and seek competent employment law counsel to best navigate and defend a coordinated investigation should one arise.   Brody and Associates regularly advises its clients on union-related matters and provides union-free training.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560.      

By: Robert G. Brody   When considering religious accommodation, employers have enjoyed great latitude with accepting or rejecting requested religious accommodations. This was thanks in large part to the Supreme Court’s 1977 ruling in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, which held an employer need only show it would bear more than a “de minimis” cost/effort to demonstrate that a religious accommodation is an undue hardship under the law. However, in the recent Supreme Court term, the US Supreme Court upended the “de minimis” cost standard. In Groff v. Dejoy, the justices unanimously ruled that Title VII requires the employer to show they would bear a “substantial increase” in cost/effort to demonstrate that religious accommodation is an undue hardship.   The Case Gross v. Dejoy involved a dispute between the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) and former employee Gerald Groff. Groff, an evangelical Christian who observes Sunday as a day of rest, requested an accommodation to not work on Sundays. In response, the USPS granted the accommodation to the extent they could redistribute Groff’s Sunday shifts. However, on the days where the USPS could not redistribute Groff’s shifts, Groff was required to work. Groff refused to work on any Sunday and was subject to progressive discipline for failing to work until he ultimately resigned rather than be fired. Groff sued under Title VII but lost his case in the district court and the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Both courts applied Trans World Airlines to the case and found that USPS established it would bear “more than a de minimis” cost in granting Groff’s accommodation request.   The Plot Twist In a shockingly-not-shocking ruling, the Supreme Court upended the Trans World Airlines ruling, opting to substitute a “substantial” cost/effort standard for the “de minimis” cost/effort standard. The “substantial” cost/effort standard is a fact-specific inquiry. The Court provided some factors to analyze, including the accommodation being requested and the accommodation’s real-world impact on the Employer considering the nature, size, and operating costs of an employer. In contrast to the previous standard, some additional costs/efforts may be insufficient to rise to the level of an undue burden. Instead, the burden must rise to an “excessive” or “unjustifiable” level.   The Impact In light of this ruling, employers must revisit their religious accommodation policies. Employers should update their handbooks, communicate the heightened standard to Human Resources, and develop a strategy for analyzing the “cost” or “effort” imposed by future religious accommodation requests. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560    

By Robert G. Brody and Mark J. Taglia July 5, 2022 Summer is just beginning and so are summer internships. Many of our clients are using interns for the first time since the Summer of 2019 – pre-pandemic. While doing so, it’s important for employers to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”) to make sure their unpaid internship programs and their unpaid interns meet all the necessary criteria under the law.  The FLSA is the federal law that covers minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and youth employment. For unpaid internships, the FLSA demands six requirements.  This applies all 50 states.  Additionally, New York state imposes an additional five requirements that also must be met in order to satisfy internship laws for For-Profit companies in New York.  These eleven factors are set forth below (a more detailed description of these factors can be found on the New York State Department of Labor website (click here)): The intern’s training is similar to training provided in an educational program. The intern’s training is for the benefit of the intern. The intern does not displace regular employees and works under close supervision. The activities of the intern do not provide an immediate advantage to the employer. On occasion, operations may actually be impeded. The interns are not entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training period and are free to take jobs elsewhere in the same field. The internship runs for a fixed period, set before the internship begins. The interns are notified, in writing, that they will not receive any wages and are not considered employees for minimum wage purposes. Such written notice must be clear and be given to the interns before the internship or traineeship starts. Any clinical training is performed under the supervision and direction of people who are knowledgeable and experienced in the activity. The interns do not receive employee benefits. The training is general and qualifies interns to work in any similar business. It is not designed specifically for a job with the employer that offers the program. The screening process for the internship program is not the same as for employment and does not appear to be for that purpose. The screening only uses criteria relevant for admission to an independent educational program. Advertisements, postings, or solicitations for the program clearly discuss education or training, rather than employment, although employers may indicate that qualified graduates may be considered for employment. *Note: These are the requirements for unpaid internships in New York at For-Profit companies.  Laws for Non-Profit companies and companies in other states may and will vary. While hiring unpaid interns should never be considered a money maker, failing to comply with the FLSA (and other applicable federal and state laws) can be a huge money loser!  Be careful in how you structure and conduct your unpaid internship to ensure you stay on the right side of the law. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with state and federal employment laws including wage and hour laws.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.965.0560.

By Robert G. Brody and Luis A. Torres   The Biden Administration’s unbridled support of Labor continues.  National Labor Relations  Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, the NLRB’s chief prosecutor, released an advice memorandum on May 25, 2022, arguing that the Board has improperly been allowing employers to ban unions from accessing portions of their property held open to the public. The NLRB is urging private property rights take a back seat to the right to unionize.   Abruzzo issued the advice memorandum in response to LT Transportation, Case 05-CA-281-089. In LT Transportation, a union was trying to unionize bus drivers. As part of their efforts the union had their representatives stationed along bus stops, which the bus company privately owned but held open to the public. The Company ordered the union off the bus stop property and the union filed charging claiming this was illegal.   When the union successfully unionized the bus drivers they withdrew its complaint against LT Transportation. However, while the case was pending, Abruzzo argued the union’s activities should be allowed and Board precedent disallowing these actions should be overturned.   The basis of Abruzzo’s argument is that current Board precedent is contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105 (1956). The Supreme Court ruled that employers could exclude non-employee union representatives in select circumstances. Subsequent Board interpretation allowed employers to ban union representatives from public property if the employees are otherwise accessible to the union. However, employer bans were not allowed if the employer discriminates against the union by allowing other groups to access the public spaces.   If Abruzzo has her way, employers will be forced to allow union representatives access to all portions of their property held open to the public. This is a large departure from Board precedent. This is one of the many initiatives Abruzzo is simultaneously pursuing. If you hold portions of your property open for public use, be on the lookout for updates.   Brody and Associates regularly advises management on all issues involving unions, staying union-free, complying with the newest decision issued by the NLRB, and training management on how to deal with all these challenges.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560

By Robert J. Brody and Luis A. Torres   California passed two laws that require diversity for certain corporate boards.  The first required diversity based on gender and the second for “underrepresented communities.”  The  effective date and required amount of representation varies based on board size.  In two separate actions, each law was found unconstitutional. The underlying challenge is these laws violate the equal protection laws since each law is declaring different treatment of equal people based on sex or other protected characteristics such as national origin or ancestry.  For these laws to pass muster, they must be found to correct unlawful conduct, not merely a societal history of unfair under representation. This issue is far from over.  California’s Secretary of State has already announced these cases will be appealed.  Regardless of what happens in California, other states are likely to follow suit.  Of course, if the laws are ultimately upheld, the number of states to follow suit will likely increase dramatically.  Time will tell. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560

May 20, 2022 By Robert G. Brody and Luis A. Torres As of July 14, 2022, New York will be launching a statewide toll-free confidential hotline that will provide counsel and assistance to individuals with concerns about workplace sexual harassment. Employers will be required to include the hotline number in any sexual harassment postings and policies. Employers should update any of their policies and materials to reference the Hotline prior to July 14. In addition to the new hotline law, New York State expanded the definition of retaliation for purposes of discriminatory practices by employers. The new definition includes employers disclosing employee files because the employee has (1) brought a claim of unlawful discrimination, including sexual harassment; (2) opposed a practice forbidden by the discrimination laws; or (3) filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in a discrimination proceeding. This law gives employees a private right of action if employers release personnel files to discredit the employee or for any other retaliatory purpose. Employers should update their policies to reflect these changes. Brody and Associates regularly advises businesses on handbooks and complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560

Brand counsel use many tools to help businesses protect their brands. The most common tool is registering a trademark with the US Patent and Trademark Office. This process seems simple but there is much that goes into the strategy behind filing the application and moving it towards registration. I thought it might be helpful to share information to demystify the process a little, and also possibly demonstrate how experienced brand counsel provide value during this process. Before I begin launch into trademark registration, I wanted to share a few thoughts on other portions of brand protection. Perhaps the most important step in the process of brand protection is clearance. Without this step, it is impossible for the business owner to understand how much risk is associated with adopting a certain brand, and what paths are best for protecting the brand. Once this process is completed, brand counsel can explain the risk, the best paths to protecting your brand and the different avenues you might pursue for brand protection. The next step after clearance is registering rights in your brand(s). Some of these avenues may include trademark registration at the state, federal or any number of international jurisdictions; copyright registration; design patent registration; etc. One area that is getting more attention recently is NIL- name, image and likeness. Experienced counsel can ensure that NIL is included in the overall protection plan. Once you have some rights in place, you should police your brand. There are many tools that can be used for this, and this should be coordinated by brand counsel. Finally, if you find a potential infringer, you need to determine how/if you should enforce your rights.   Steps in obtaining a US Trademark Registration There are many assumptions in this article. Most notably, we assume that the business owner is aware of how much risk is involved in using and registering their brand and that they have decided the best vehicle for protecting the brand is filing a US trademark application. Further, this article pertains specifically to the US trademark registration process. While there are many overlaps in similar state and foreign processes, the US process is quite unique. The registration process is comprised of four general steps, namely, filing the trademark application, review by the government, review by third parties and proving that the brand is in use in commerce. These steps have multiple sub steps, each of which could fill a book on its own. I won’t pretend to provide all pertinent information in this article; simply an overview of the entire process. Filing the trademark application of course consists of gathering the information necessary to complete the application, but there is more strategy implemented at this stage than at any other step. Basic decisions such as choosing a filing basis drives the timing of the filing, the duration of the process and the costs of the process. Determining the combination of the brand and goods/ services to include in each application can be the difference in collisions with other brands one on hand and breadth of protection on the other hand. Finally, other strategies such as declaring portions of the brand to be descriptive or translatable can be included at this time. Review by the government is a very broad topic. The USPTO must consider many rules when reviewing an application and therefore there are many types of refusals that could be issued. Further, the facts that the examiner is being graded by the number of refusals issued and this same examiner is an unbiased party present unique opportunities for the applicant. Publication opens the window of time for third parties to review your application and to oppose it if they feel they would be harmed if the USPTO issued a registration. In many ways this is a repeat of the government’s review in that the same rules apply. However, the applicant will now be facing a very biased party—possibly a competitor or similarly adverse business. Fortunately, very few applications are opposed, but those that are frequently spend months or years in this stage. Proving use of the brand can happen at many stages of the registration process. This step is uncommon in the rest of the world, thus many foreign applicants have issues with this process. The USPTO rules are not necessarily intuitive, so many US applicants also have issues with this process. Filing Basis for a Trademark Application Not everyone can file an application to register a trademark. The application requires that each applicant declare at least one reason that it is allowed to file a trademark application. This is referred to as the application filing basis. There are four basic filing bases: intent to use the trademark in commerce; current use of a trademark in commerce; filings made directly to the USPTO, but based on a foreign application or registration; and applications filed indirectly to the USPTO via WIPO and based on a foreign application or registration. Each one of these methods involve a distinct decision tree that can lead to registration. Further, each one has various requirements that must be met along the way and even various privileges. Intent to use a trademark is exactly as it sounds. An applicant is allowed to use this basis if it has a bona fide intent to begin using its brand. The USPTO will review this application like every other application, and this application can even be published for third party opposition. However, the USPTO will not issue a registration until the applicant has shown that this brand is in use. This can be done prior to publication, in which case the process is not slowed down. Many applicants file this proof of use after publication, which could delay the registration process by up to three years. One reason this method is popular is that the brand is treated as though it began use as of the application date. One pain point about this basis is that it costs more money as the statement of use has a separate filing fee, as do the extensions which may be necessary. An applicant can also file an application based on its current use of a trademark. This method is likely the most straightforward as the application is filed directly with the USPTO and contains everything required to achieve registration. This simplicity makes it the fastest method and inexpensive. The other methods require that the applicant holds a valid registration or a pending application for the exact same brand in connection with the same or a more narrow list of goods and services in a foreign country. This method is popular amongst applicants wishing to gain trademark rights in multiple jurisdictions, and is generally best for foreign entities expanding their rights in to the US. One perq is that there are provisions that can allow the US application to be treated as though it were filed on the same day as the foreign application. A downside of the direct filing method is that the applicant must show that the foreign registration was issued before the USPTO will even publish the application for third party opposition. A downside of the indirect filing method is that WIPO has its own review process which the applicant must first complete before the application is sent to the USPTO.   What Brands and Identifications to include in a Trademark Application The most common thing people understand about trademark law is that the test for infringement is likelihood of confusion. While this is a multi-factor test, the basics in determining whether or not one brand is likely to be confused with another is whether the brands are similar and their goods and/or services are related. While this is more art than science, there is much opportunity to determine how the USPTO will view this analysis based upon what you put in the application. This becomes important when you are aware of specific brands that may cause some concern. For example, maybe you are opening a restaurant that bears your last name (e.g., Swanson) and it is similar to a name used on food sold in the grocery stores. The goal would be to prepare your application such that it presents your brand in a way that the USPTO (and ultimately the other party) does not think there is a chance that the public would be confused between the brands. First, in terms of the brands themselves, you can determine whether or not additional words or other elements should be included/excluded from the brand identified in the application. Maybe adding a distinctive term, design, stylization or color will help differentiate your client’s brand from the existing brand. Next, you can possibly describe the goods and services to reduce the risk that they are related. Maybe you serve seafood in your restaurant and the existing brand is know for apples. In that case, I would decide to make sure that the application is narrowed to seafood restaurants only. This is very much a judgment call and can really only be made by someone who has seen hundreds or thousands of situations in which similar items were compared. Also, this is the stage in which you make sure that your application is in the best position to be defended if the USPTO does claim that there is a likelihood of confusion.   Other Considerations in Filing a Trademark Application Filing a trademark application can be compared to making a first offer in a negotiation. First, you need to make sure your basic elements are correct. Second, you need to make other elements look the way you want them to look to get the USPTO to think the way you want them to think. Many of these decisions are very nuanced and require knowledge not only of trademark law, but also an understanding as to how the USPTO and third parties think. One basic thing includes making sure you identify the correct applicant. There are many cases in which a registration has been cancelled based on a simple mistake like this. Other basic things include making sure the right brand is identified, and that you’ve included correct information about the filing basis. Other elements are not crucial to the application being valid, but may be critical as to whether the registration is ultimately issued or how broad its registered rights may be. Common examples are whether or not you choose to disclaim exclusive rights in a word in your brand or how you choose to translate a foreign word in your brand. Another big consideration is what filing basis/bases you should use. Often an applicant qualifies for more than one, and choosing which one(s) to use may be the difference between a registration or an abandoned application. You can’t be effective in this area unless you understand trademark law, the registration process and how the USPTO and third parties think.   Common Formal Objections Raised by the USPTO in the Review of a Trademark Application Once you file the application, the USPTO will review it to see if it is fit for publication. Don’t expect a quick turnaround here. This review has been as quick as 3-4 months, but is currently taking about 6 months or longer. If the USPTO determines that the application is acceptable, the applicant will receive notice that it will be published for third party review. On the other hand, the USPTO may determine that there are some issues which prevent publication, in which case these will be explained to the applicant in an office action (aka Initial Refusal) and the applicant will be given 6 months to respond to these issues. The types of issues raised are generally labeled as formal or informal. The formal issues are more severe, and accordingly more difficult (and expensive) to overcome. The two most common formal objections are likelihood of confusion and descriptiveness. Likelihood of confusion can be very difficult to overcome. In general you need to show that, based on information present in the records, it is not likely that the public will be confused between your brand and other brand(s) on file with the USPTO. There is a lot of case law in this area and several plans of attack. Competent brand counsel can sort through this and determine the best path forward. Descriptiveness is potentially more subjective than likelihood of confusion. The line between a descriptive and a suggestive trademark is very important and also the most arbitrary in all of trademark law. Again, there is a lot of case law in this area and competent brand counsel can counsel you through the balancing of having the strongest brand possible and gaining a registration. Another category relates to the specimens of use provided in an application based on use in commerce. I will discuss this topic in more detail in a later section dedicated to proving use of a brand. I’ve alluded to competent brand counsel on several occasions. Another concept is good brand counsel. Good brand counsel will provide you with a cost estimate to prepare these arguments and the likelihood of success. Tip of the day: try to find competent brand counsel who keeps your bottom line in mind.   Common Informal Objections Raised by the USPTO in the Review of a Trademark Application Not all issues raised by the USPTO are severe, but they all must be addressed. Brand counsel typically refers to the less severe issues raised by the USPTO as informal issues. As with the formal issues discussed in the last section, the USPTO will typically raise informal issues in a refusal letter and provide you with 6 months to respond. The good examining attorneys at the USPTO will often call the counsel of record if the only issues spotted are informal, as these matters can sometimes be resolved in a phone call. I’ve also seen allusion to the possibility that the USPTO may start requiring faster responses to office actions which raise only informal issues. Informal issues can be as simple as correcting typographical errors or clarifying information about the applicant. They also can relate to the identification of goods and services, either requesting a more definitive or less ambiguous identification or suggesting that another class may be appropriate. Other topics include disclaiming exclusive rights to an element (i.e.,portion) or translating a word in the brand. As with formal objections, it is important that you respond within the 6 month deadline. Failure to do so can lead to the abandonment of the entire application, or at least a portion of the application if the refusal relates only to a portion of the goods and services. There is a possibility to revive an application, but this must be done relatively quickly and the revival process adds time and money to the registration process. While informal issues are less severe (i.e., easier to overcome), it is no less important to plan your response. For example, the USPTO’s request to disclaim a term may be easy to achieve, but what will that mean to the long-term protectability of your brand? It is important that you understand the repercussions of your response before you simply file it.   Common Grounds for Opposition Raised by Third Parties in the Review of a Trademark Application Once you have completed the USPTO review phase, the next step is publication. While this term refers to the old practice the Trademark Official Gazette being printed and distributed to brand counsel who would then pore over the thousands of applications published each week (always on a Tuesday!), today publication is primarily an online phenomenon. (I wonder how many people still receive the TMOG?) Third parties have 30 days after publication to oppose an application. They also have the option to file extensions of time to oppose, which are typically used to conduct further investigation, deliberation or settlement discussions. Assuming they decide to file an opposition, a mini trial begins in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Like any trial, there is a plaintiff (the opposer) and a defendant (the applicant). The plaintiff must file a Notice of Opposition which states the grounds for the opposition. By far the common grounds for opposition are likelihood of confusion. There are other grounds, including descriptiveness, dilution, fraud and abandonment. In each of these, the opposer must show that the applicant’s application fails to meet the legal requirements and that the opposer would be harmed by registration of that brand. One drastic difference between overcoming a refusal from the USPTO and successfully defending an opposition is the seriousness of the other party. The USPTO is unbiased and is not as likely to go to great lengths to further its position. On the other hand, a party opposing your application will be personally harmed and is more likely to vigorously defend its position. Oppositions are not the only way to challenge a third party’s registered rights. I have been involved in matters in which a third party negotiates with an applicant and convinces the applicant to either voluntarily abandon the application or assign it to the opposer. I have also been involved in federal cases in which the court decides the opposition should be abandoned. It takes a seasoned brand counsel to help you determine which method is right for your situation.   Proving Use of a Brand in the Review of a Trademark Application The most common filing bases require that the applicant prove that it is currently using the brand. In layman’s terms, this means that you must provide the USPTO with a sample of your use, a brief description of this sample, the dates you first used your brand and a declaration that all items are currently in use. The general rules about a sample of use (a “specimen”) is that it should show the brand and roughly describe or refer to the underlying goods or services. The PTO’s rules regarding appropriate samples of use (a “specimen”) vary according to whether you are providing a good or service. If you provide a service, the most common acceptable specimen is advertisement.  If you provide a good, you should show packaging or some similar item that is likely to travel with the good in commerce. The applicant must also need to describe the specimen submitted. There is a lot of strategy in this step as you want to make sure there is enough detail that the PTO can understand the context of the specimen, but not so much that they may second guess whether or not the specimen is something that would commonly be acceptable as a specimen. In short, you should not want the examiner to have to think too hard as they are more inclined to be too critical. There are two dates of first use that need to be submitted—the date of first use anywhere and the date of first use in commerce. There is so much that can be written here, but in most cases these dates are identical. Finally, you need to sign a declaration that the brand is being used in connection with all items in the application. It is possible to delete items and/or make the declaration apply to only certain items, but a registration will not issue until a declaration is submitted for all items in the application (as amended). The number of specimens you are required to submit depends on the number of classes your application covers. The simple rule is that you need to submit at least one specimen per class of goods and services. If one class contains multiple items, a specimen for any one is sufficient provided you sign the declaration that the brand is in use for all items. There are some situations in which it seems unusual to submit only one specimen for an application, especially when the list of goods or services is exceptionally long. The USPTO has been known to challenge long listings of goods or services via an audit if anything seems suspicious, so one strategy is to submit multiple specimens to make this less likely. (Practice pointer: it is a good habit to collect and hold on to specimens for all items to be in a good position to address any future audit.) The final point relates to the timing of the statement of use filing. If you have filed your application based on use in commerce, this step is accomplished as part of the initial application for registration. If you file your application based on intent to use your brand, you essentially have two separate time periods in which to file the statement of use. The first time period begins the moment after you file the application, and ends once the USPTO concludes its review of the application. Filings made in this period are technically referred to as an Amendment to Allege Use. There are several advantages to filing in this time period. The primary benefit is that, if the USPTO does not accept your Amendment to Allege Use, you are allowed to withdraw it. Another benefit is that it reduces the time it takes to move forward to registration. There is a black out period at the end of the first period which extends through the publication period and ends once the USPTO issues the Notice of Allowance. The Notice of Allowance essentially states that the applicant has met all of the requirements for registration except for proving that the brand is in use. The issuance of the Notice of Allowance begins the second time period, and this period lasts for six months, and the applicant can request up to five six-month extensions, for a total of three years.  Filings made in this period are technically referred to as a Statement of Use. There are no real advantages to filing in this time period, other than it increases the overall time from filing date to registration. How is this an advantage? Remember that if you file based on intent to use, your effective priority date is the filing date. This could allow you to have a priority date that is easily four years prior to the date you actually began using the brand.   Summary Anyone can file a trademark application. This statement is true because it only requires accessing the USPTO web site (

Popular

What's Trending

As an advisor, your role is to help clients prepare to exit their business, yet many people resist thinking about the future because it involves so many unknowns, decisions, and choices.  And emotions typically complicate matters further, sometimes derailing the process altogether.  Here are some questions that can help you establish rapport with your clients, learn more about their concerns, and move the conversation forward. How are you feeling about your work/profession/business these days? Which aspects of work are you still enjoying, and which are you ready to leave behind? Do you envision retiring from work at some point, or are you contemplating an encore career? What part of planning for your future feels most challenging? How do you imagine your life in retirement will be different from how it is now? What process are you using to figure out what you’ll do next after you retire? What would you like to see happen with your business long term? What options have you considered for the transfer of your business? What steps have you taken to make your business more attractive to a potential buyer? What are your concerns about transitioning your firm to new ownership? What would be your ideal scenario for transitioning out of your company? What topic(s) have we touched on today that we should put on our agenda to revisit? So, what happens after you pose a few of these questions and your clients open up about emotional matters?  Remember, the most helpful thing you can do is to listen attentively.  You’ve created a valuable opportunity for them to talk about things they may not share with other advisors.   Here are some tips for managing the conversation when clients raise emotionally loaded topics: Don’t try to “fix things” by immediately offering suggestions. Doing so sends the message that you’re uncomfortable hearing their concern.  You can offer suggestions but do so later. Don’t say anything that conveys the message that their feeling or concern is unwarranted. “There’s really no need to feel that way” or “I’m sure it will be just fine” may sound reassuring to you but could be experienced as dismissive by your client. Don’t immediately offer a logical counterpoint to your client’s emotion. Remember, feelings don’t have to make sense; they’re “as is”.  Put another way, if feelings made sense, they would be thoughts. People report concerns and characterize their feelings differently from one another, so it’s in your best interest to seek amplification and clarification by inquiring as follows . . . “I want to make sure that I understand exactly what you mean by ___.  Can you tell me more?” “People sometimes mean slightly different things when they talk about ___.  What does ___ mean for you?” “Before I suggest anything, I’d like to learn more about it from your perspective.” It’s possible that during early conversations your client may hint at mixed feelings about exiting their business.  That’s perfectly normal, but you need to bring it out into the open.  You want to foster an atmosphere such that your client keeps you apprised about where they’re at.  If they keep their ambivalence to themselves, it has greater potential to blindside you and complicate the sale.  You can say: “In my experience, it’s normal to have some mixed emotions about selling.  Those thoughts may not always be top of mind, but when they do pop up let’s be sure to talk about them.  Believe it or not, they can help inform our process and alert us to aspects of the sale that are important to you.” You may also find that your client is overly risk averse.  If so, consider saying the following: “Our work together won’t be comprehensive if we only plan for what could go wrong.  That’s just half the equation.  It’s fine to be conservative and err on the side of caution, but to be truly realistic we should also consider a range of possibilities both good and bad.”   Author’s Note:  The concepts in this article are derived from Robert Leahy’s book, Overcoming Resistance in Cognitive Therapy.  New York:  Guilford

For five decades, the southern United States has been an attractive location for automakers to open plants thanks to generous tax breaks and cheaper, non-union labor. However, after decades of failing to unionize automakers in the South, the United Auto Workers dealt a serious blow to that model by winning a landslide union victory at Volkswagen. In an effort to fight back, three southern states have gotten creative: they passed laws barring companies from receiving state grants, loans and tax incentives if the company voluntarily recognizes a union or voluntarily provides unions with employee information. The laws also allow the government to claw back incentive payments after they were made. While these laws are very similar, each law has unique nuances. If you are in an impacted state, you should seek local counsel. In 2023, Tennessee was the first state to pass such a law. This year, Georgia and Alabama followed suit. So why this push? In 2023, the American Legislative Exchange Council (“ALEC”), a nonprofit organization of conservative state legislators and private sector representatives who draft and share model legislation for distribution among state governments, adopted Tennessee’s law as model legislation. In fact, the primary sponsor of Tennessee’s bill was recognized as an ALEC Policy Champion in March 2023. ALEC’s push comes as voluntary recognition of unions gains popularity as an alternative to fighting unions. We recently saw this with the high-profile Ben & Jerry’s voluntary recognition. Will this Southern strategy work to push back against growing union successes? Time will tell. Brody and Associates regularly advises its clients on all labor management issues, including union-related matters, and provides union-free training.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560.  

I once had the thrill of interviewing Jerry West on management. He was “The Logo” for the NBA, although back then they didn’t advertise him as such. Only the Laker followers knew for sure. In 1989 the “Showtime” Lakers were coming off back-to-back championships.  Pat Riley was a year away from his first of three Coach of the Year awards. 

Can you Offer Too Many SKUs to Your Customers? The short answer is YES! A SKU, or Stock Keeping Unit, defines each different product version that you sell and keep inventory of.  There may be different SKUs of the same overall item based on size, color, capacity (think computer or cellphone memory), features, and many other parameters.  For build to forecast businesses, that number of variations can quickly explode and become difficult to manage. Your customers are busy and want ordering simplified. Of course, they may need (or want) more than one variation of a product. That is reasonable and a common aspect of business – one size does not fit all! But there is a point where too offering too many SKUs is not value added either for your customer or your business.  In his April 30, 2013 article “Successful Retailers Learn That Fewer Choices Trigger More Sales” in Forbes, Carmine Gallo discusses his experience and a study about “choice overload” by other authors. He writes about a retailer that “has discovered that giving a customer more than three choices at one time actually overwhelms customers and makes them frustrated…when the customer is faced with too many choices at once, it leaves the customer confused and less likely to buy from any of the choices!” Choice overload is well-documented in consumer studies but can apply in B2B as well. While customer satisfaction is important, another key concern is the often-hidden costs associated with a business offering and managing a large number of SKUs for a given product type. These costs include holding inventory, S&OP (Sales and Operations Planning) team time, small production runs, and scrapping inventory. Holding inventory takes up space, which may come with a cost or utilize racks that could be used for other products. Scheduled inventory counts take up employee time and may result in blackout periods when the warehouse is not shipping product.  The more SKUs there are, including extra SKUS, the greater the potential impact. The Sales team’s forecasting and the Operations team’s purchasing reviews that are part of the S&OP process can occupy more of their valuable time if they need to consider these times. If small orders or forecasts require a new production run, this could be costly and create excess inventory. Whether from this new production or past builds, eventually it will make sense to write off and scrap old inventory, another cost impact to the company. How do you know which SKUs to focus on if you wish to look at reducing your total number of SKUs? Start by examining SKUs that have: Low historic sales over a period of time Small variations between SKUs that customers do not value Older technology or model when newer option SKUs are available This requires a true partnership between Sales and Operations. It starts with educating both teams on the costs involved – neither group may be aware of the money and time impact to the company. Periodic (such as quarterly) reviews of SKUs that meet the above descriptions should become a fixed part of the calendar. A review of the data and other available for sale options should result in the identification of SKUs which may not be needed. At that point, it is helpful to have a customer friendly EOL (End of Life) Notice process by which you inform customers of last time buy requirements for this SKU and alternates available. It is usually best to provide some time for the last time buy in the interest of customer satisfaction, although that may not always be necessary. At a company that designed and sold electronics, a robust SKU rationalization process was implemented to help address these issues. A representative from the Operations team analyzed SKUs that met a version of the above criteria and suggested candidates for the EOL process. Next, a member of the Sales team reviewed them and, where appropriate, issued product change or EOL notices to customers, providing them time for last time buy orders when needed. These steps helped reduce the work involved in maintaining these SKUs while not leading to any customer complaints. A final note – sometimes it makes sense to continue offering low selling SKUs – to support customers buying other items (hopefully in larger quantities). It may be worthwhile to encourage them to keep coming back to you for all of their product needs and this may be a way to accomplish that. But it helps to understand that this is truly the case and not assume that this customer would not be equally happy with another, more popular, SKU.   Steven Lustig is founder and CEO of Lustig Global Consulting and an experienced Supply Chain Executive.  He is a recognized thought leader in supply chain and risk mitigation, and serves on the Boards of Directors for Loh Medical and Atlanta Technology Angels.

When it comes to careers, business owners are a minority of the population. In conversations this week, I mentioned the statistics several times, and each owner I was discussing it with was surprised that they had so few peers. According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), there are over 33,000,000 businesses in the US. Let’s discount those with zero employees. Many are shell companies or real estate holding entities. Also, those with fewer than 5 employees, true “Mom and Pop” businesses, are hard to distinguish from a job. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Association, lists businesses with 5 to 99 employees at about 3,300,000, and 123,000 have 100 to 500 employees (the SBA’s largest “small business” classification.) Overall, that means about 1% of the country are private employers. Owners are a small minority, a very small minority, of the population. Even if we only count working adults (161,000,000) business owners represent only a little more than 2% of that population. So What? Where am I going with this, and how does it relate to our recent discussions of purpose in business exit planning? It’s an important issue to consider when discussing an owner’s identity after transition. Whether or not individual owners know the statistics of their “rare species” status in society, they instinctively understand that they are different. They are identified with their owner status in every aspect of their business and personal life. At a social event, when asked “What do you do?” they will often respond “I own a business.” It’s an immediate differentiator from describing a job. “I am a carpenter.” or “I work in systems engineering,” describes a function. “I am a business owner” describes a life role. When asked for further information, the owner frequently replies in the Imperial first person plural. “We build multi-family housing,” is never mistaken for a personal role in the company. No one takes that answer to mean that the speaker swings a hammer all day. Owners are a Minority We process much of our information subconsciously. If a man enters a business gathering, for example, and the others in the room are 75% female, he will know instinctively, without consciously counting, that this business meeting or organization is different from others he attends. Similarly, business owners accept their minority status without thinking about it. They expect that the vast majority of the people they meet socially, who attend their church, or who have kids that play sports with theirs, work for someone else. There are places where owners congregate, but otherwise, they don’t expect to meet many other owners in the normal course of daily activity. This can be an issue after they exit the business. You see, telling people “I’m retired” has no distinction. Roughly 98% of the other people who say that never built an organization. They didn’t take the same risks. Others didn’t deal with the same broad variety of issues and challenges. Most didn’t have to personally live with the impact of every daily decision they made, or watch others suffer the consequences of their bad calls. That is why so many former owners suffer from a lack of identity after they leave. Subconsciously, they expect to stand out from the other 98%. “I’m retired” carries no such distinction.       This article was originally published by John F. Dini, CBEC, CExP, CEPA on

Previous
Next

Explore the Knowledge Exchange

Search