|
|
|
Marketers Beware!
New FTC Guidelines Target Endorsements
and Testimonials in Web 2.0 Advertising
 The long-awaited Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (the Guides) adopted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) become effective December 1, 2009. Although the Guides previously addressed endorsements by consumers, experts, organizations and celebrities, as well as disclosure of "material connections"
between an endorser and an advertiser, they have now been revised, for the first time in 30 years, to reflect today's era of Web 2.0 advertising: social networking sites, blogs and Internet advertising.
In an age when consumers are more influenced than ever by referrals and ratings, the Guides are intended to create more transparency to the reader and more accountability to the advertiser for the new generation of "word of mouth advertising" which is growing rapidly and is too often hidden by anonymity or shrouded in potential bias. In adopting these revised Guides, the FTC shunned the critics that hailed industry self-regulation as sufficient, removed safe harbors such as "results not typical" style disclaimers, and placed the burden of responsibility for truthful advertising squarely on the advertiser, even in
situations where the advertiser might appear to have little control over the actual marketer.
Read more about the new FTC guidelines.
|
|
|
|
Global Warming Litigation is Heating Up
Can the owner of property destroyed by Hurricane Katrina sue a manufacturer who allegedly contributed to global warming? Over the past 45 days, this question, or ones like it, have been answered by two different federal appellate courts with a resounding "Yes." The most recent such decision was issued by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, et al.
Read the entire article on global warming litigation.
|
|
|
Is Illinois Becoming more Likely
to Enforce Restrictive Covenants?
For decades the conventional wisdom in Illinois has been that it is difficult to enforce restrictive covenants since Illinois' threshold inquiry is whether the restrictive covenant is necessary to protect a "legitimate business interest." The definition of the legitimate business interest however, has been subject to interpretation.
The test is in two parts. First, is whether the customers' relationship with the employer is nearly permanent, due to employee's employment. Second, is whether the employee knew and tried to use confidential information for his or her own benefit. This analysis made enforcement of restrictive covenants more difficult in Illinois than some other jurisdictions. It also created inconsistencies in the analysis of restrictive covenants for medical professionals and others.
Read the entire article on restrictive covenants.
|
|
|
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Settles Litigation over Controversial Patent Rules
but Backlog Remains an Issue
 On October 9, 2009, many patent applicants, patent owners and patent attorneys were delighted to hear that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had settled the litigation over the controversial patent regulations that were proposed in 2007. In particular, the news that the USPTO had agreed to rescind the regulations as a
component of the settlement was met with a favorable reaction from a great majority of the patent community. David Kappos, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, was quoted as saying at the time, "These regulations have been highly unpopular from the outset and were not well received by the applicant community."
But how did we get to this point? In an attempt to address the growing backlog of pending patent applications, the USPTO proposed a significant set of regulations that were intended to attack several of the root causes of the backlog as identified by the USPTO. The regulations generally were considered to reduce the flexibility and certain opportunities available to patent applicants, and to impose certain new duties on patent applicants and their attorneys.
Read the entire article about controversial patent regulations.
|
|
|
Indiana Week in Review
 Ice Miller is proud to sponsor Indiana Week in Review text and e-mail alerts notifying viewers of subjects which will be discussed in the upcoming show, as well as viewer polls. Each week you will receive, by text to your mobile device, the line-up of the show and the poll
question being asked during the show. You can vote and view the results of the poll when you receive the question. Find out how to participate in both of these opportunities at www.wfyi.org/iwir.
|
|
|
This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader must consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader's specific circumstances. |
|
|
|
