On September 25, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement with seven rent-to-own companies that secretly installed software on rented computers, clandestinely collected information, took pictures of consumers in their homes (WTF?!) and tracked these consumers’ locations.
If you haven’t vomited on your computer from the sickening outrage, you can read the FTC press release here.
Software design firm DesignerWare, LLC licensed software to rent-to-own stores ostensibly to help them track and recover rented computers. The software collected the data that enabled rent-to-own stores, including franchisees of Aaron’s, ColorTyme, and Premier Rental Purchase, to track the location of rented computers without consumers’ knowledge
According to the FTC, the software enabled remote computer disabling if it was stolen, or if the renter failed to make payments. It included an add-on purportedly to help stores locate rented computers and collect late payments. Alarmingly, the software also collected data that allowed the rent-to-own operators to secretly track the location of rented computers, and thus the computers’ users.
When activated, the nefarious feature logged key strokes, captured screen shots and took photographs using a computer’s webcam, according to the FTC. It also presented a fake software program registration screen that tricked consumers into providing their personal contact information.
“An agreement to rent a computer doesn’t give a company license to access consumers’ private emails, bank account information, and medical records, or, even worse, webcam photos of people in the privacy of their own homes,” said Jon Leibowitz, Chairman of the FTC. “The FTC orders today will put an end to their cyber spying.”
“There is no justification for spying on customers. These tactics are offensive invasions of personal privacy,” said Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.
I’m surprised at how often I receive commercial bulk email messages that are not compliant with the Federal CAN SPAM act.The two biggest mistakes I see are 1) no physical address and 2) no opt-out/unsubscribe mechanism.
Image via CrunchBase
Another common mistake is a “blind” bulk email address list like “Undisclosed-Recipients@email.com.” Not only do I NOT know which address this received the offensive message, there usually isn’t even a proper return address for me to send an “Unsubscribe” message.
With the popularity of social media, you’ve probably received a Twitter promotion for iPhones, special deals, free downloads, etc. While it’s easy to dismiss poorly-written tweets from obvious spammers, when someone replies to you on Twitter, says “must read, check it out” and the topic is clearly the kind of thing you read and share it’s more difficult to tell. Often, these are from legitimate accounts where a human has taken the time to compose and send the message.
In light of the growing use of electronic mail (“email”) messages for advertising, marketing, corporate communications and customer service, is essential to have some familiarity with the Federal “Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing Act of 2003” also known as the CAN SPAM Act (the “Act”) The Act provides the parameters of its application, explicit prohibitions, requirements for transmission of legally compliant email messages including the “Opt-Out” mechanism and vicarious liability. Generally speaking, the Act was written to prohibit the fraudulent, deceptive, predatoryand abusive practices that threaten to undermine the success and effectiveness of commercial email and email marketing.
Congress drafted the Act to impose limitations and penalties on the transmission of unsolicited commercial email messages. Unlike some state initiatives, the Act is an “opt-out” law. Put another way, for most purposes permission of the e-mail recipient is not required. However, once an email recipient has indicated a desire to opt-out or no longer receive such messages, failure to comply with the recipient’s request may subject both the sender and the person or entity on whose behalf the message was sent to severe penalties.
Frequently asked question about the Act include:
1) To Whom Does The Act Apply? The Act applies to any person or entity that sends email.
2) What Activities Are Prohibited By The Act? The Act is primarily concerned with explicitly prohibiting certain predatory and abusive commercial email practices.
3) What Are The Requirements For Sending Email Messages? Section 5(a) of the Act sets requires the inclusion non-misleading information regarding: (a) transmission, (b) subject, (c) email address, (d) Opt-out and physical address, and (e) clear and conspicuous language identifying sexually-oriented messages.
4) Who Can Be Liable for Violations? The Act applies to both the party actually sending the commercial email messages and those who procure their services.
Discussion
The primary substantive provisions of the Act can be divided into three parts found in Section 4, Section 5 and Section 6. Section 4 of the Act addresses “predatory and abusive” practices prohibited by the Act. Section 5 details the requirements for transmission of messages that comply with the Act. Section 6 details the requirements for transmission and identification of sexually-oriented messages. Section 6 is not discussed in this article.
Section 4 of the Act lists specific “predatory and abusive” practices prohibited by the Act. In short, the Act specifically prohibits: (i) accessing a computer without authorization for the purpose of initiating transmission of multiple commercial email messages, (ii) transmission of multiple commercial email messages with the intent to deceive or mislead recipients, (iii) transmission of multiple commercial email messages with materially false header information, (iv) registration of email accounts or domain names using information that materially falsifies the identity of the actual registrant, and (v) false representations regarding the registration of Internet Protocol addresses used to initiate multiple commercial email messages.
The second relevant part, set forth in Section 5 of the Act, details the requirements for transmission of messages that comply with the Act. Subject to certain limitations discussed below, the Act requires that email messages contain: (i) transmission information that is not materially false or misleading, (ii) subject information that is not materially false or misleading, (iii) a return address or comparable mechanism for opt-out purposes, (iv) identifier, Opt-out and physical address, and (v) clear and conspicuous language identifying sexually-oriented messages as such. (Note, this last requirement is not discussed. See above.) Lastly, the Act implicates both commercial email transmission service providers as well as those who procure their services.
To Whom Does The Act Apply?
The Act applies to any person or entity that sends email. The Act specifically regulates “commercial electronic mail messages,” defined as any email message “the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service (including content on an Internet website operated for a commercial purpose).” However, the Act specifically excludes from this definition “transactional or relationship messages.” A “transactional or relationship message” falls within one of five categories of messages:
communications that facilitate, complete or confirm a commercial transaction previously agreed to by the recipient;
communications that provide warranty or other product information with respect to a product or service previously used or purchased by the recipient;
notifications with respect to a subscription, membership, account, loan, or comparable ongoing commercial relationship;
information directly related to an employment relationship or related benefit plan in which the recipient is currently involved; and
communications to deliver goods or services, including product updates or upgrades, under the terms of a transaction previously agreed to by the recipient.(Emphasis added.)
The purpose for the distinction between “commercial electronic mail messages” and “transactional or relationship messages” is to exempt certain types of communications from compliance with all the message transmission requirements of the Act. As should be clear from the list above, the Act distinguishes the types of communications based on the relationship between the sender and recipient rather than on the character of the message. Put another way, so long as the communication is related to some type of existing business relationship, it is not a “commercial electronic mail message.”
What Activities Are Prohibited By The Act?
Section 4 of the Act is primarily concerned with prohibiting certain predatory and abusive commercial email practices. Section 4(a) amends Chapter 47 of Title 18 of the United States Code by adding Section 1037 which specifies the offenses that constitute “fraud and related activity in connection with email.” An offense is committed by anyone who directly or indirectly, knowingly:
accesses a protected computer without authorization, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from or through such computer,
uses a protected computer to relay or retransmit multiple commercial electronic mail messages, with the intent to deceive or mislead recipients, or any Internet access service, as to the origin of such messages,
materially falsifies header information in multiple commercial electronic mail messages and intentionally initiates the transmission of such messages,
registers, using information that materially falsifies the identity of the actual registrant, for five or more electronic mail accounts or online user accounts or two or more domain names, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from any combination of such accounts or domain names, or
falsely represents oneself to be the registrant or the legitimate successor in interest to the registrant of 5 or more Internet Protocol addresses, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from such addresses.
Clearly, Section 4 is primarily concerned with preventing practices whereby the sender intentionally, either through outright fraud or other deception, conceals its true identity or the true commercial character of the message.
What Are The Requirements For Sending Email Messages?
Section 5(a) of the Act sets forth certain other protections for the users of commercial email.
Accurate Transmission Information. Among the affirmative requirements of Section 5(a), Section 5(a)(1) prohibits sending either a commercial electronic mail message, or a transactional or relationship message, that contains, or is accompanied by, header information that is materially false or materially misleading. Unlike the general prohibition against sending messages with materially false header information under Section 4, in addition to having technically accurate transmission information, the sender is prohibited from having used false pretense or other deceptive means to acquire such information (e.g. email accounts, domain names and IP addresses). Furthermore, the “from” line must “accurately identify the person transmitting the message.” Lastly, the sender must accurately identify the computers used to originate, relay or retransmit the message.
Note, the following only apply to commercial electronic mail messages:
Accurate Subject Information. Messages must have accurate subject information. Subject information would not be accurate if a “person has actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances, that a subject heading of the message would be likely to mislead a recipient, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a material fact regarding the contents or subject matter of the message.”[8]
Inclusion of Opt-out Mechanism. Messages MUST contain a functioning return email address or other Internet-based mechanism (e.g. hyperlink), that is clearly and conspicuously displayed that enables a recipient to submit a request to opt-out of future email messages from the sender whose email address was contained in the message. The opt-out mechanism (whether email address or hyperlink, etc.) must remain functional for at least thirty (30) days after the transmission of the original message.
Removal After Objection. If a recipient makes a request using the opt-out mechanism, the sender shall not transmit any further messages to the recipient, more than ten (10) business days after the receipt of such request, if such message would fall within the scope of the request. A third-party acting on behalf of the sender shall not transmit or assist others to transmit, any further messages to the recipient, more than ten (10) business days after the receipt of such request, if such third party knows or should know of the recipient’s objection. Lastly, the sender and any third party who knows that the recipient has made such a request, shall not sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise transfer or release the electronic mail address of the recipient for any purpose other than compliance with the Act or other provision of law.
Inclusion of Identifier, Opt-out & Physical Address. Every message must clearly and conspicuously: (i) identify the message as an advertisement or solicitation; (ii) provide notice of the opportunity to opt-out of future communications; and (iii) provide a valid physical postal address of the sender. However, the notice that a message is an advertisement or solicitation does not apply where the recipient has given prior affirmative consent to receive the message.
Related Activities Proscribed.
Other prohibitions in the Act concern unethical or unscrupulous practices that tend to coincide with deceptive or abusive email. Several common methods for generating email distribution lists have also been proscribed. The Act prohibits certain unethical practices such as:
hijacking another email server to send or relay messages;
“harvesting” email addresses that appear on others’ Web sites;
randomly generating email addresses;
knowingly linking an email ad to a fraudulently registered domain; and
participating in other offenses such as fraud, identity theft, etc.
Who Can Be Liable for Violations?
The Act applies to both the party actually sending the commercial email messages and those who procure their services.[9] One cannot “outsource” its “spam” and thereby avoid liability under the Act. One may be held accountable if the email service employed isn’t actually using a legally-compiled or permission-based list. Under some parts of the Act one may be held liable for employing a third party to distribute the messages “with actual knowledge, or by consciously avoiding knowing, whether such [third party] is engaging or will engage, in a pattern or practice that violates this Act.”
CONCLUSION
The Act was written to prohibit the fraudulent, deceptive, predatory and abusive practices that threaten to undermine the success and effectiveness of commercial email and email marketing. Since Bacon’s uses email to communicate with employees, vendors, existing and prospective customers, Bacon’s is clearly subject to the Act. The Act focuses on enumerating proscribed activities rather than affirmative obligations to make it easier for legitimate, honest businesses to comply with the Act. The Act distinguishes communications based on a previously existing relationship between the sender and the recipient from those communications that are prospective in nature. Generally, email messages not based on a pre-existing relationship are subject to greater affirmative requirements.
Compliance Guidelines.
Be Aware of the Requirements for Transmitting Messages.
26 2012 4:39 p.m. MDT. Summary. With the help of a $3 million grant from the U.S. Department of Labor, officials at Utah Valley University are working to meet the demand for workers trained in information technology and cybersecurity.
Cyber-security contest in RI opens to students
Boston.com
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — Students interested in the field of cyber-security are being urged to enter the state’s third Cyber Foundations Competition. U.S. Rep. Jim Langevin (LAN’-jih-vin), who is co-chair of the Cybersecurity Caucus in Congress, says.
Government said to be making larger strides in cybersecurity
FCW.com
Michael Daniel, special assistant to the president and cybersecurity coordinator at the NSC, highlighted progress in a number of initiatives including short-term, medium-term and long-term plans. “Right now cyberspace seems to favor the intruder…”
Verizon Joins Cybersecurity Group
Personal Liberty Digest
GAITHERSBURG, Md. (UPI) — Communications company Verizon has joined the Lockheed Martin Cyber Security Alliance to counter cybertreats to U.S. information technology infrastructure.
Media Advisory: Minister Toews to Make Announcement Related to Cyber
U.S. Politics Today
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO — (Marketwire) — 09/26/12 — The Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety, will launch Cyber Security Awareness Month. He will be joined by Michael Kaiser, Executive Director of the U.S. National Cyber Security Alliance.
Lieberman pushes Obama to issue cybersecurity executive order
Daily Caller
Lieberman was the lead co-sponsor of the failed Cybersecurity Act of 2012, a controversial bill that sought to give the federal government regulatory control over the cybersecurity standards of water, power and utility companies.
White House said to plan EO on cybersecurity
ABS CBN News
SAN FRANCISCO – The White House is preparing to direct federal agencies to develop voluntary cybersecurity guidelines for owners of power, water and other critical infrastructure facilities, according to people who said they had seen recent drafts.
Northrop Buys M5 Network Security – Analyst Blog
NASDAQ
Northrop Grumman Corporation ( NOC ) has closed the acquisition of M5 Network Security Pty Ltd. for an undisclosed amount. Canberra, Australia-based, M5 Network Security Pty Ltd. provides cyber security and secure mobile communications products and …
Official Reaffirms US DOD Commitment to Cybersecurity
defpro
The U.S. Defense Department remains vigilant and committed to cybersecurity, especially since its cyber operations present a target for hackers, a senior Pentagon official said here Sept.
Representative Markey is no stranger to mobile privacy issues. Last year, Rep. Markey asked the FTC to investigate the practices of the Carrier IQ software company as a possible unfair or deceptive act or practice.
On September 12, 2012, Rep. Markey, co-Chair of the Bi-Partisan Congressional Privacy Caucus, released H.R. 6377, “The Mobile Device Privacy Act.” The legislation would require companies to disclose to consumers the capability to monitor telephone usage, as well as require express consent of the consumer prior to monitoring.
“Just because a mobile device is hand held doesn’t mean it should hand over personal information to third parties without permission,” said Markey in a released statement.
The Federal Trade Commission has published a guide to help mobile application developers observe truth-in-advertising and basic privacy principles when marketing new mobile apps. The FTC’s new publication, “Marketing Your Mobile App: Get It Right from the Start,” notes that there are general guidelines that all app developers should consider. They include:
Tell the Truth About What Your App Can Do. – “Whether it’s what you say on a website, in an app store, or within the app itself, you have to tell the truth,” the publication advises;
Disclose Key Information Clearly and Conspicuously. – “If you need to disclose information to make what you say accurate, your disclosures have to be clear and conspicuous.”
Build Privacy Considerations in From the Start. – Incorporate privacy protections into your practices, limit the information you collect, securely store what you hold on to, and safely dispose of what you no longer need. “For any collection or sharing of information that’s not apparent, get users’ express agreement. That way your customers aren’t unwittingly disclosing information they didn’t mean to share.”
Offer Choices that are Easy to Find and Easy to Use. – “Make it easy for people to find the tools you offer, design them so they’re simple to use, and follow through by honoring the choices users have made.”
Honor Your Privacy Promises. – “Chances are you make assurances to users about the security standards you apply or what you do with their personal information. App developers – like all other marketers – have to live up to those promises.”
Protect Kids’ Privacy. – “If your app is designed for children or if you know that you are collecting personal information from kids, you may have additional requirements under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.”
Collect Sensitive Information Only with Consent. – Even when you’re not dealing with kids’ information, it’s important to get users’ affirmative OK before you collect any sensitive data from them, like medical, financial, or precise geolocation information.
Keep User Data Secure. – Statutes like the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act may require you to provide reasonable security for sensitive information.
Illustration of Facebook mobile interface (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
A recent New Jersey District Court case underscores the rise in tensions between employers and employees when it comes to Social Media Accounts. In Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp., the Court denied an employer’s motion to dismiss a former employee’s invasion of privacy claim that alleged a supervisor accessed the employee’s Facebook account. Ehling worked for Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corporation (“MONOC”) and became Acting President of the local union for Professional Emergency Medical Services. Ehling alleged that MONOC began engaging in a pattern of retaliatory conduct against her eventually leading to termination of her employment.
Posting Limited to “Friends”
Ehling maintained an account on Facebook, but kept access to her wall post limited to Facebook “friends,” many of whom were coworkers, but none of whom were members of MONOC’s management. Ehling alleged that MONOC surreptitiously gained access to her Facebook account when a supervisor summoned a MONOC employee, who was a Facebook friend, and coerced, strong-armed, and/or threatened the employee to access his Facebook account in the supervisor’s presence for the purpose of viewing and copying Ehling’s posts.
Ehling alleged that MONOC then sent letters regarding a certain posting to the New Jersey Board of Nursing and the New Jersey Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services as it was concerned that Plaintiff’s Facebook posting showed a disregard for patient safety. Ehling alleged the letters were malicious and meant to damage her professionally.
Ehling’s claim for common law invasion of privacy was premised on Defendants’ alleged unauthorized “access of her private Facebook postings” The Court denied MONOC’s motion to dismiss which argued that Ehliong did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in her Facebook posting. The Court stated that Under New Jersey law, to state a claim for intrusion upon one’s seclusion or private affairs, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that (1) her solitude, seclusion, or private affairs were intentionally infringed upon, and that (2) this infringement would highly offend a reasonable person. See Bisbee v. John C. Conover Agency Inc., 186 N.J. Super. 335, 339 (App. Div. 1982). “[E]xpectations of privacy are established by general social norms” and must be objectively reasonable – a plaintiff’s subjective belief that something is private is irrelevant. White, 344 N.J. Super. 211, 223 (Ch. Div. 2001).
The Impact of Social Media on Privacy is Unsettled
The Court went on to make further observations on the impact of Social Media on Privacy:
“Privacy in social networking is an emerging, but underdeveloped, area of case law. See Robert Sprague, Invasion of the Social Networks: Blurring the Line between Personal Life and the Employment Relationship, 50 U. Louisville L. Rev. 1, 13 (2011) (discussing the undefined legal boundary between public and private communications on social networking websites).
There appears to be some consistency in the case law on the two ends of the privacy spectrum. On one end of the spectrum, there are cases holding that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for material posted to an unprotected website that anyone can view. See, e.g., United States v. Gines-Perez, 214 F.Supp.2d 205, 225 (D.P.R. 2002), rev’d on other grounds, 90 F. App’x 3 (1st Cir. 2004) (“[I]t it strikes the Court as obvious that a claim to privacy is unavailable to someone who places information on an indisputably, public medium, such as the Internet, without taking any measures to protect the information”); Yath v. Fairview Clinics, N.P., 767 N.W.2d 34, 44(Minn. Ct. App. 2009) (holding that privacy was lost when private information was posted on a publicly accessible Internet website and “[a]ccess to the publication was not restricted”).
Some Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
On the other end of the spectrum, there are cases holding that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy for individual, password-protected online communications. See, e.g., Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 201 N.J. 300 (N.J. 2010) (employee could have reasonably expected that e-mail communications with her lawyer through her personal, password-protected, web-based e-mail account would remain private); Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, LLC, 587 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in personal, password-protected e-mail messages stored on a third party’s server, although the employee had accessed that outside server while at work).
Legal Approaches Continue to Develop
The Court note that a consistent approach hasn’t yet developed. While most courts hold that a communication is not necessarily public just because it is accessible there is disagreement as to how far that theory extends. Some courts have adopted the rule that when one shares private information to one or more persons, there may still be a reasonable expectation that the recipients of the information will not disseminate it further. What is clear is that privacy determinations are made on a case-by-case basis, in light of all the facts presented.
Although courts have called the Internet “one large catalyst for rumor, innuendo, and misinformation,” nevertheless, it provides large amounts of evidence that may be relevant to litigation matters. Increasingly, courts are facing presentation of, and challenges to, data preserved from various websites. According to a survey conducted by the X1ediscovery blog, there are over 320 published cases involving social media/web data in the first half of 2012.
Evidentiary authentication of web-based data, whether it’s Internet site data available through browsers, or social media data derived from APIs or user credentials, presents challenges. Given the growing importance of social media posts and data, businesses should be prepared to offer foundational evidence to authenticate any posts that are vital to a case.
Authentication of social media and web data is a relatively novel issue for many courts. Courts have been extremely strict in applying foundation requirements due to the ease of creating a profile or posting while masquerading as someone else. Therefore it is important to go beyond the surface of a social media profile or a post to provide the foundation necessary to authenticate what he evidence for use in court.
Regardless of the type of data, it must be authenticated in all cases. The authentication standard is found in Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a), “The requirement of authentication … is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” United States v. Simpson, 152 F.3d 1241, 1249 (10th Cir. 1998).
The foundational requirement of authentication is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. See US v. Tank, 200 F. 3d 627, 630 (9th Circuit 2000) (citing Fed.R.Evid. 901(a)). This burden is met when “sufficient proof has been introduced so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity.” This burden was met where the producer of chat room web logs explained how he created the logs with his computer and stated that the printouts appeared to be accurate representations. Additionally, the government established the connection between the defendant and the chat room log printouts based on IP addresses.
Clearly, there is an emerging trend in the use of social media and web data as evidence. As the use of this type of evidence increases, so too will the consistency and predictability of the foundational matters required by courts. Thus, businesses are well advised to include web collection and social media support in the investigation process so they are prepared to offer the necessary foundational evidence to authenticate any social media posts that may be vital to a case.
PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — MutualMind, an award-winning social media technology developer based in Dallas, Texas, announced an agreement today with LexisNexis, a leading provider of legal content and technology solutions.
While consumer brands have embraced Facebook as a key tool in building deeper customer engagement, the biggest social network largely remains terra incognita in the legal world. The sector has certainly harnessed professional networking sites.
Legal action could be taken against people in Bahrain, who incite violence and spread sectarianism on social media, said a top official. The initiative comes as a new code of honour for social media users is set to be launched by the Bahrain Bloc.
An overwhelming majority of investigators using social media for investigative purposes are “self taught,” according to a new survey of 1200 Federal, state, and local law enforcement professionals.
That’s but one of the many conclusions found in a comprehensive new survey — conducted in a partnership between PoliceOne and LexisNexis Risk Solutions — focused on the impact of social media on law enforcement in criminal investigations. Among the …
The State of Maryland already has passed a law forbidding employers from asking job candidates for their passwords to Facebook and other social media sites, and California is considering a similar law. 01fgSCREEN2.jpg View full size · The Society for …
With an understanding of some of the relevant issues, employers can implement meaningful and reasonable policies and guidelines for employees and respond appropriately and legally to social media issues that arise. Below are a few of the discrete issues …
The trick for us is trying to provide legally correct information, in such a way that is easy to understand, to the American public so that investors truly understand their options with retirement savings.” “Internet, the online experience and social media are the 21st Century.”
Below are methodologies and metrics for determining the ROI of these specific social media use cases. The metrics roll up to three major categories of benefits: revenue impact, operational efficiencies, and legal and compliance risk avoidance.
David M. Adler, Esq. is an attorney, author, educator, entrepreneur and partner with Leavens, Strand, Glover & Adler, LLC, a boutique law firm in Chicago, Illinois created with a specific mission: provide businesses with a competitive advantage by enabling them to leverage their intangible assets and creative content in order to drive innovation and increase overall business value.
We meet this challenge by providing legal counsel on issues related to creation, protection and commercialization of intangible assets, our comprehensive understating of the relevant law, our team of seasoned professionals and our client service philosophy.
Charles Colton famously stated “Imitation is the sincerest (form) of flattery.” This has never been more true than in the fast-paced world of fashion where designers constantly draw on prior art for inspiration. As Tim Gunn (mentor to would-be fashion designers on the television show Project Runway) often says, “Make it your own.”
Legislation under consideration in the U.S. may provide limited protection for Haute Couture fashion designs.
Ping® by AdlerLaw A Legal Blog 