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

Qualified Small Business Stock is a type of stock that includes immense tax relief for investors. Those benefits serve to stimulate investment in small businesses by mitigating the tax consequences that attach to their returns. Below is an article that discusses the definition of QSBS, the relevant IRC section at play, the tax benefits flowing from QSBS, the standards for obtaining QSBS, and the costs and importance involved in gaining a QSBS certification. What is Qualified Small Business Stock? Qualified Small Business Stock is that class of stock issued by a small C corporation that meets specific qualifications specified in the Internal Revenue Code. It enables the investor in QSBS to exclude from federal income taxation up to 100% of the capital gain realized upon the sale of such stock, provided certain requirements are met. The provision is meant to incentivize investment in startups and small businesses as a means of promoting innovation and driving economic growth. Governing Section of the Internal Revenue Code Treatment of QSBS is given under Section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code. This section was enacted as part of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993 and has undergone several amendments to expand the benefits available to investors. Section 1202 outlines those requirements that must be satisfied for stock to qualify as QSBS, along with particular tax benefits available to the investors. Examples of Qualified Small Business Stock Tax Benefits Investing in QSBS offers substantial benefits in terms of tax. Example: Exclusion of Capital Gains: Depending on when the QSBS was acquired, up to 100% of the capital gains from the sale of QSBS can be excluded from federal income tax. The exclusion percentages are as follows: 50% of the stock acquired from August 11, 1993 to February 17, 2009. 75% for stock acquired between February 18, 2009 and September 27, 2010. 100% for stock acquired after September 27, 2010. Limitation on Gain: The amount of gain to be excluded is limited to the greater of $10 million or ten times the adjusted basis in the stock. The generous cap allows for significant tax savings by investors. The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) stipulates that gains exempted under Section 1202 do not qualify as preference items for the purposes of AMT, potentially offering supplementary tax relief. State Tax Benefits: Some states follow federal QSBS exclusion rules, giving additional state tax benefits. Investors should check the particular rules of the state pertaining to QSBS. How to Meet the QSBS Requirements To qualify for QSBS treatment, certain requirements must be met: Qualified Small Business: The issuing corporation must be a domestic C-corporation and it must meet the definition of a “qualified small business.” A qualified small business is one in which the corporation’s aggregate gross assets do not exceed $50 million at any time before and immediately after the issuance of the stock. Active Business Requirement: During at least 80% of the period the investment is held, assets of the corporation must be used in the active conduct of one or more qualified trades or businesses. The following types of businesses specifically do not qualify:. The stock must be obtained directly from the corporation when the stock is originally issued, in exchange for money, other property but not stock, or as compensation for services. Holding Period: The investor must hold the QSBS for more than five years to qualify under the capital gains exclusion. These requirements are often complex to navigate, and guidance is usually sought from a tax specialist to ensure compliance with the law. What is a Qualified Small Business Stock Attestation? A Qualified Small Business Stock Attestation is the declaration of a corporation; a formal statement that the stock of the particular corporation meets all the qualifications necessary for the classification to be deemed a QSBS under Section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code. This certification gives assurance of qualification both to investors and the tax authorities, confirming the eligibility for the tax advantages to the owners. Importance and Cost of a Qualified Small Business Stock Attestation Investor Confidence: It enhances investor confidence because the attestation is basically a documented proof that the stock is qualified for favorable tax treatment; thus, making it more attractive to prospective investors. Tax Compliance: An attestation plays a crucial role in confirming adherence to tax regulations and can promote more efficient engagement with tax authorities. It functions as proof that the corporation satisfies the QSBS requirements, which may streamline the tax reporting procedure. Risk Mitigation: The attestation works by giving a risk mitigation of disputes or challenges in the future that may develop in the mind of the IRS about the stock’s QSBS status. Cost The costs for obtaining a QSBS certification will depend on many factors, such as the extent of complexity of the company’s organizational structure and how much any given professional services company charges for providing the certification. In most cases, the costs range between several thousand to tens of thousands of dollars. Regardless of the monetary investment, the tax advantages likely to be gained for the backers, coupled with increased certainty of conformity, could make the expense a wise investment. Conclusion Qualified Small Business Stock provides substantial tax advantages to investors in the interest of enabling small businesses to energize the economy. Controlled by Section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code, QSBS enables considerable exclusions from federal income taxation of capital gains. However, fulfilling these requirements can be tricky, and the ability to get a QSBS attestation may provide much value through assurance with compliance and qualification for huge tax benefits. Although obtaining such certification does involve some costs, the potential tax incentives and reduced liabilities make it an important consideration for companies and investors alike.

Depending on who you are talking to, Private Equity is either the Great Satan or the savior of small and mid-market companies in the United States. The stories depend a lot on the personal experience of the speakers. Once a vehicle for high-risk investment plays in corporate takeovers (see Bryan Burrough’s Barbarians at the Gate,) Private Equity has morphed into tranches where specialists seek opportunities in everything from a Main Street entrepreneurship to multi-billion-dollar entities. What is Private Equity? The term itself is relatively generic. According to Pitchbook, there are currently 17,000 Private Equity Groups (or PEGs) operating in the US. The accepted business model for our purposes is a limited partnership that raises money to invest in closely held companies. The purpose is plain. Well-run private businesses typically produce a better return on investment than publicly traded entities. The current Price to Earnings (or PE – just to be a little more confusing) ratio of the S&P 500 is about 27.5. This is after a long bull market has raised stock prices considerably. The ratio is up 11.5% in the last year. That means the average stock currently returns 3.6% profit on its price. Of course, the profits are not usually distributed to the shareholders in their entirety. Compare that to the 18% to 25% return many PEGs promise their investors. It’s easy to see why they are a favorite of high net worth individuals, hedge funds and family offices. As the Private Equity industry has matured and diversified, they have even drawn investment from the usually more conservative government and union pension funds. Private Equity Types Among those 17,000 PEGs the types range from those who have billions in “dry powder” (investable capital,) to some who claim to know of investors who would probably put money into a good deal if asked. Of course, which type of PEG you are dealing with is important information for an owner considering an offer. private equity moneyThe “typical” PEG as most people know it has a fund for acquisitions. It may be their first, or it may be the latest of many funds they’ve raised. This fund invests in privately held businesses. Traditionally PEGs in the middle market space would only consider companies with a free cash flow of $1,000,000 or greater. That left a plethora of smaller businesses out of the game. For a dozen years I’ve been writing about the pending flood of exiting Boomers faced with a lack of willing and able buyers. I should have known better. Business abhors a vacuum. Searchfunders Faced with an overabundance of sellers and a dearth of capable buyers, Private Equity spawned a new model to take advantage of the market, the Searchfunders. These are typically younger individuals, many of whom graduated from one of the “EBA” (Entrepreneurship By Acquisition) programs now offered by almost two dozen business schools. These programs teach would-be entrepreneurs how to seek out capital, structure deals, and conduct due diligence. Some Searchfunders are “funded”, meaning they have investors putting up a stipend for their expenses. Others are “self-funded.” They find a deal, and then negotiate with investment funds to back them financially. Both PEGs and Searchfunders seek “platform” companies, those that have experienced management or sufficiently strong operational systems to absorb “add-on” or “tuck-in” acquisitions. The costs of a transaction have bumped many seasoned PEGs into $2,000,000 and up as a cash flow requirement. Searchfunders have happily moved into the $500,000 to $2,000,000 market. In the next article we’ll discuss how PEGs can promise returns that are far beyond the profitability of the businesses they buy.

Early last month, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed the Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings rule. The aim is to curb heat related injuries or death which OSHA identifies as “the leading cause of death among all hazardous weather conditions in the United States.” The proposal places new responsibilities on employers: establishing heat thresholds, developing Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plans, regularly monitoring temperatures, and establishing safety measures when heat thresholds are met. This rule is yet to be finalized however, it is a sign of what’s to come. The standard applies to all employers except for the following: Work activities for which there is no reasonable expectation of exposure at or above the initial heat trigger. Short duration employee exposures at or above the initial heat trigger of 15 minutes or less in any 60-minute period. Organizations whose primary function is the performance of firefighting and other certain emergency services. Work activities performed in indoor work areas or vehicles where air conditioning consistently keeps the ambient temperature below 80°F. Telework (work from home). Sedentary work activities at indoor work areas that only involve some combination of the following: sitting, occasional standing and walking for brief periods of time, and occasional lifting of objects weighing less than 10 pounds. Heat Thresholds There are two heat thresholds which will trigger employer action: An “initial heat trigger” means a heat index of 80°F or a wet bulb globe temperature (defined below) equal to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Recommended Alert Limit; and A “high heat trigger” means a heat index of 90°F or a wet bulb globe temperature equal to the NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit. The “heat index” is calculated by measuring the ambient temperature and humidity. Wet bulb globe temperature is a heat metric that considers ambient temperature, humidity, radiant heat from sunlight or artificial heat sources and air movement. Employers may choose either method of measuring the temperature.   Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plan (HIIPP) Requirements If an employer does not fall under the exceptions, it must develop a HIIPP with the input of non-managerial employees and their representatives for occasions when the heat threshold is surpassed. This plan may vary on the worksite but must be written if the employer has more than 10 employees and use a language employees will understand. The HIIPP must contain: A comprehensive list of the type of work activities covered by the HIIPP Policies and procedures needed to remain compliant with the standard. Identification of which heat metric the employer will use heat index or wet bulb globe temperature. A plan for when the heat threshold is met. Along with creating the HIIPP, employers must designate one or more “heat safety coordinators” responsible for implementing and monitoring the HIIPP. The HIIPP must be reviewed at least annually or whenever a heat related injury or illness results in death, days off work, medical treatment exceeding first aid, or loss of consciousness. Employers must seek input from non-managerial employees and their representatives during any reviews or updates. The definition of “representative” is not defined; if this is broadly defined, this could be a major complexity employers must face. Identifying Heat Hazards Employers must monitor heat conditions at outdoor work areas by: Monitoring temperatures at a sufficient frequency; and Track heat index forecasts or Measure the heat index or wet bulb globe temperature at or as close as possible to the work areas. For indoor work areas, employers must: Identify work areas where there is an expectation that employees will be exposed to heat at or above the initial heat trigger; and Create a monitoring plan covering each identified work area and include this work area in the HIIPP. Employers must evaluate affected work areas and update their monitoring plan whenever there is a change in production processes or a substantial increase to the outdoor temperature. The heat metric employers choose will affect the thresholds. If no heat metric is specified, the heat metric will be the heat index value.  Employers are exempt from monitoring if they assume the temperature is at or above both the initial and high heat trigger, in which case they must follow the controls below. Control Measures When Heat Triggers are Met When the initial heat trigger is met, employers must: Provide cool accessible drinking water of sufficient quantity (1 quart per employee per hour). Provide break areas at outdoor worksites with natural shade, artificial shade, or air conditioning (if in an enclosed space). Provide break areas at indoor worksites with air conditioning or increased air movement, and if necessary de-humidification. For indoor work areas, provide air conditioning or have increased air movement, and if necessary de-humidification. In cases of radiant heat sources, other measures must be taken (e.g., shielding/barriers and isolating heat sources). Provide employees a minimum 15-minute paid rest break in break areas at least every two hours (a paid or unpaid meal break may count as a rest break). Allow and encourage employees to take paid rest breaks to prevent overheating. At ambient temperatures above 102° F, evaluate humidity to determine if fan use is harmful. Provide acclimatization plans for new employees or employees who have been away for more than 2 weeks. Maintain effective two-way communication between management and employees. Implement a system to observe signs and symptoms of heat related problems (e.g., a Buddy system). When the high heat trigger is met, employers are additionally required to: Provide employees with hazard notifications prior to the work shift or upon determining the high heat trigger is met which includes: the importance of drinking water, employees right to take rest breaks, how to seek help in a heat emergency, and the location of break areas and water. Place warning signs at indoor work areas with ambient temperatures exceeding 102° F. Other Requirements Training: all employees and supervisors expected to perform work above the heat thresholds must be trained before starting such work and annually.   What’s Next? The rule is yet to be published in the Federal Register. Once this happens, there will be a 120-day comment period when all members of the public may offer OSHA their opinion about the rule. Whether this rule comes to fruition may also depend on which party wins the White House. Furthermore, if finalized this rule would likely be challenged in the courts, which now have more discretion to overrule agency rules following the US Supreme court case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce (overturning the Chevron deference decision). Employers should review their heat illness prevention policies to maintain compliance with regulations. If you have questions, call competent labor and employment counsel. 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  

Today we are highlighting the FIREPOWER Owner Sweet Spot Sessions! We’re about to embark on a game-changing conversation that will revolutionize the way you approach your business. It’s time to shift gears and start envisioning the future of your company in a new personal role. The Small Business Universe: Common Concerns of Owners Similar concerns echo throughout the small business universe. Maybe you feel like you’re lacking the right leadership, or worse, you don’t have any leadership at all. Perhaps your workforce has hit a plateau, or you’re dealing with the frustrating challenge of high turnover. And let’s not even get started on the never-ending cycle of decision-making, where it feels like you’re carrying the entire load on your own. What is the Work that Only You Can Do? We’re here to share a secret to successfully moving your business into the future. It all starts with a simple question: What is the work that only you can do? It’s time to tap into your natural talents and abilities that have fueled your business success from its inception and then refocus your efforts in a new way. Now, brace yourself for a little revelation that’ll bring a smile to your face. The answer to that question is much less than what you’re currently doing. Yes, you heard it right. You’re probably sporting way too many hats, it’s time to bid farewell to those unnecessary responsibilities and rediscover your true sweet spot. Enter the FIREPOWER Owner Sweet Spot sessions. These sessions are crafted to help you pinpoint those burdensome responsibilities that are holding you back from doing the work your company desperately needs from you. We’re here to lift that heavy weight off your shoulders and set you free to focus on what truly matters in achieving your future goals. Deciphering the best use of your time is the key to solving both short-term challenges and long-term business goals. It allows you to stay fully engaged in the work that only you should do, helps your teams to know your true superpowers, and ultimately unleashes your full potential to lead your company into the future. At FIREPOWER, we truly get the challenge, we live it every day. We understand the struggles you face as an owner.  Juggling numerous roles and tasks can be incredibly overwhelming and downright draining. But here’s some fantastic news – it doesn’t have to be that way. By identifying your unique strengths, you can reclaim your valuable time, restore your energy reserves, and reignite your enthusiasm for your business. So, are you ready to unlock your Owner Sweet Spot? Then it’s time to bid farewell to all the hats you’ve been wearing, delegate those unnecessary responsibilities, and rediscover the true value you bring to your company. Our owner-focused approach led by Maria Forbes, will expertly guide you through the process, empower your team, and take your business to unprecedented heights. Conclusion Remember, sustainable growth flourishes when you harness the potential of your team and become laser-focused on the work that only you can do. The number of hats you wear will shrink, while the quality of your life expands. It’s time to embrace the FIREPOWER within you and achieve the success you’ve always dreamed about. Together, we can make it happen! Fuel your people power, Maria Forbes with FIREPOWER Teams

Previous
Next

Explore the Knowledge Exchange

Search