Technology Law Source

Status of CBD products under Ohio law: Update

In our recent post, Status of CBD products under Ohio law: Part one, we discussed the perplexing regulations in Ohio that made it effectively illegal to sell hemp and Cannabidiol (CBD) despite passage of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, otherwise known as the 2018 Farm Bill. That landscape has now changed in Ohio with the passage of Senate Bill 57, signed into law by Governor DeWine on July 30, 2019.

The version of Senate Bill 57 that Governor DeWine signed into law has special emergency provisions making the legislation effective immediately upon signing the bill. This post will examine what Senate Bill 57 does to change Ohio’s legal landscape for hemp and CBD and provides an overview of what Ohioans can expect as the hemp program takes shape in Ohio. Continue Reading

Kawhi Leonard v. Nike, Inc.: Copy, derivative work or distinct work?

On July 17, 2019, Nike, Inc. (Nike) filed its Answer and Counter Claims in response to the complaint previously filed by Kawhi Leonard, now of the Los Angeles Clippers. Read about the complaint in our previous post, Kawhi Leonard v. Nike Inc.: How copyrights can trump trademarks?

In its Answer, Nike asks for a declaration that Nike is the sole owner of copyrights in the modified “KL2” logo, a finding that Kawhi’s use of the modified “KL2” logo infringes the copyrights owned by Nike, cancellation of Kawhi’s copyright registration to the modified “KL2” logo due to fraud in his copyright application, and a finding that Kawhi breached the “Men’s Pro Basketball Contract” he entered into with Nike on October 26, 2011. Continue Reading

The GDPR: A year in review

On May 25, 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became effective across the European Union. The GDPR is a regulation designed to give EU residents control over their personal data and simplify the regulatory framework for international organizations doing business in the EU. In its infancy, it was not entirely clear how the GDPR would be enforced. Now, one year later, the regulation is beginning to show some teeth.

For individual consumers, the GDPR likely calls to mind last year’s flurry of privacy policy email updates from companies scrambling to comply, or perhaps the constant stream of consent pop-ups and cookie banners Europeans navigate on a daily basis when browsing the web. For U.S. companies that do business abroad, however, the GDPR represents a constant struggle to refine their data protection policies, as strict compliance remains an elusive target.

Although many data privacy lawyers disagree on whether strict compliance with the GDPR is even possible, recent enforcement measures have shed some light on how the regulation may be enforced in the future. A review of last year’s enforcement actions should help companies avoid unnecessary penalties and inform them what to expect going forward. Continue Reading

Kawhi Leonard v. Nike Inc.: How copyrights can trump trademarks?

On Monday, May 3, 2019, in the midst of the NBA finals, Kawhi Leonard of the Toronto Raptors filed a lawsuit against Nike, Inc. (Nike) in the US District Court Southern District of California. The complaint asks the Court for a declaration that Kawhi is the sole author of the “KL2” logo, that his use of that logo does not infringe the rights of Nike, and that Nike committed fraud in its copyright application. The “KL2” logo is sometimes referred to as the “Klaw” logo which is a nickname for Kawhi. Kawhi owns US trademark registration number 5608427 for the “KL2” logo for use with apparel. However, Nike owns US copyright registration number VA0002097900 for the “KL2” logo.

Kawhi KL2 logo

Trademark Reg. No. 5608427

See our update in part two, Kawhi Leonard v. Nike, Inc.: Copy, derivative work or distinct work?. Continue Reading

China’s draft measure on cross-border personal information transfer

On June 13, 2019, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CMA, 国家互联网信息办公室), an office that serves as China’s central internet regulator and censor, released the draft Measures for Security Assessment of Cross-border Transfer of Personal Information (the Measure, 个人信息出境安全评估办法) for public comment.

Following is a brief analysis on how this Measure, if adopted, could affect U.S. entities doing business in China or doing business with Chinese entities.  Continue Reading

Status of CBD products under Ohio law; Emerging issues in intellectual property related to cannabis business: Part 2

In Part 2, we cover the key Intellectual Property issues that are emerging in this arena. Read part 1 here.

United States Patent and Trademark Office update

Following the enactment of the Farm Bill, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has officially issued guidelines when reviewing trademark applications for CBS and hemp-derived goods and services.

This is a big step for the cannabis industry as for many years, entities have tried, unsuccessfully, to legally protect their trademarks in connection with commercial cannabis businesses. The USPTO policy for many decades has been rigid in its dealing with cannabis related trademarks; the tolerance level being essentially none. Continue Reading

Status of CBD products under Ohio law; Emerging issues in intellectual property related to cannabis business: Part 1

Two emerging issues related to commercial cannabis are taking center stage for industry stake holders in Ohio:

  1. Current legal status of hemp and cannabidiol (CBD) based products under state law
  2. How intellectual property rights will be protected

We will walk through both the background and current status related to these issues in this two part series.

Background: Hemp and CBD legal status in Ohio

Until recently, federal law did not differentiate hemp from marijuana meaning both were considered “marihuana” (the law dates back decades and uses an older spelling of the word marijuana) and outlawed as a Schedule I Controlled Substance. Late last year, Congress passed the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, otherwise known as the “Farm Bill”. The Farm Bill removed hemp from the definition of “marihuana,” effectively removing it from the Controlled Substances Act and paving the way for legalized hemp cultivation and sale. Continue Reading

A “Boost” for copyright protection in the fashion industry: Kanye’s Yeezy sneakers to receive copyright registrations

On May 8, 2019, the Review Board of the U. S. Copyright Office issued a decision stating that Yeezy 350 Boost Version 1 and Yeezy 350 Boost Version 2 sneakers each include copyrightable subject matter. The Adidas Yeezy sneakers are a collaboration between Adidas AG and Kanye West which has been wildly popular and as a result has been frequently knocked off by imitators. So it is not surprising that Adidas AG pursued copyright protection for these sneakers. This decision by the U.S. Copyright Office clarifies that footwear designs can be perceived as two- or three-dimensional works of art separate from the footwear themselves. Thus, footwear designers clearly have the option of copyright protection for footwear designs having sufficient originality.

Yeezy 350 Boost Version 1 (left), Yeezy 350 Boost Version 2 (right)

In 2017, Adidas AG filed applications for copyright registration of the Yeezy Boost 350 Version 1 and the Yeezy Boost 350 Version 2 which are shown above in photos from the decision. The U.S. Copyright Office initially rejected these applications because the sneakers were said to be “useful articles that do not contain any copyrightable authorship needed to sustain a claim to copyright.” Note that copyright law does not protect useful articles, such as clothing and footwear. See 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Continue Reading

Verify your wires!

The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center has released its 2018 annual report, which includes statistics that internet-enabled theft, wire fraud and exploitation were responsible for a staggering $2.7 billion in financial losses in 2018. If you are involved in transactional work, this can happen to you.

Reports detail an increasingly common story of wire fraud accompanying large sum transactions. The story line often includes a spoofed email invoice in connection with closing, which instructs one party to wire closing related expenses to a fraudulent account. As a result of the detailed and convincing invoice, one party loses their funds forever when they wire a large sum to the hacker’s offshore account.

What are the courts saying?

Recent news reported on a story about a hack that took place during a real estate closing. A law firm forwarded money to Deutsche Bank in accordance with instructions from a mortgage company. Through “mimicking” the e-mail address that the lender used, the hacker provided fraudulent wiring instructions to the law firm.

In rejecting the law firm’s complaint against the lender, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that state law does not allow companies to bring negligence claims against organizations that are hit with a data breach based on “a duty to safeguard the private information of another individual.” The court observed that its decision rests on a developing area of law: “whether or how to impose liability on a party whose potentially negligent conduct flows from a data breach.” Courts have come down on both sides of the issue, giving companies little clarity on who is liable for negligence after a data breach.

Red flags to watch for:

Above all, verifying the wire instructions verbally with the creditor/vendor can easily prevent loss in such scenarios. Through quick communication, parties can discover incorrect bank account information and avoid wire fraud. There are many indicia that point to suspicious e-mailed (or faxed) instructions. Here are a few red flags to keep in mind:

  • A message from a Gmail or Hotmail account, especially late in a transaction
  • A slight misspelling of words in the sender’s address or message
  • Instructions that direct a wire to a foreign account, an account without the payee’s proper name, or an unknown bank
  • Changing wire instructions
  • Any “rush” transaction

These cases demonstrate the importance of maintaining adequate cyber insurance and the necessity of independently verifying all wire instructions transmitted through non-secure servers. Finally, calling a known telephone number is typically the safest way to verify information with any party to a matter.

Riding the waves of U.S. data privacy legislation

privacy legislationMuch has been written about the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Commentators have touted the EU’s supposedly superior data protection regimen. But don’t lose focus on what is happening within the U.S. and the implications for U.S. companies that may not be focused on GDPR requirements. Even companies that are GDPR focused may not meet the upcoming requirements. At least three significant privacy legislation fronts in the U.S. bear mentioning: Continue Reading

LexBlog