General Advertising Industry News & Updates

If anyone was still unsure, Kylie Jenner recently proved that a tweet or post from a social media influencer can have a profound impact. Accordingly, companies are increasingly collaborating with social media influencers to promote their brand. This partnership has become quite lucrative for both parties. For example, a recent Forbes article found that influencers could charge $3,000 to $5,000 per post, while some more sought-after influencers were commanding upwards of $25,000. Influencers could also charge anywhere from $20,000 to $300,000 for a campaign or partnership, depending on the number of followers and the social media platform used. Likewise, a 2015 survey by Tomoson found that, on average, “[b]usinesses are making $6.50 for every $1 spent on influencer marketing.” Influencer campaigns have even resulted in products immediately selling-out.

But what happens when an influencer’s post infringers on the intellectual property rights of another?

The relationship between influencers and a business can vary widely. In some instances, businesses oversee and orchestrate the social media posting, almost akin to directing a commercial. In other scenarios, businesses request final approval before the posting is made public. In still other scenarios, the influencer is not given concrete direction or required to get approval for the posting, i.e., the influencer is free to promote the brand as they wish. Business and influencers should be aware of different liability concerns in each scenario.

One of the first cases in this arena was a suit brought by Ultra Records against influencer Michelle Phan for allegedly using background music in her postings without prior permission. While the case eventually settled, it raised the real concern of copyright infringement concerns in influencer advertising and marketing campaigns. As this emerging avenue of advertising and marketing grows in scope and profitability so will the lawsuits. When contracting in any scenario, parties should make sure to address liability concerns for any potential IP infringement. Businesses and influencers should think twice before making their next post and make sure the works and rights of others are not being used without permission. Perhaps more importantly, the parties should take proactive steps to address who will be liable in the event infringement does occur.

Social media bots may seem like a futuristic phenomenon or something belonging only in the TV series “Homeland,” but they’re already here affecting businesses and individuals online.

Last month, the New York Times reported on its investigation into the selling of fake Twitter followers and retweets by an American company named Devumi, which it estimates has at least 3.5 million automated Twitter accounts and at least 55,000 of which that impersonate real people.  These individuals probably have no idea that Devumi purportedly uses their names, profile pictures, etc. to create automated accounts to sell to celebrities, politicians, businesses, and others looking to boost their following online.

According to a related New York Times article, there have been a number of both federal and state inquiries into fake social media account practices such as these, including an investigation that the New York Attorney General’s office opened last month into Devumi’s practice of using stolen identities to sell fake accounts, which it believes would constitute illegal impersonation and deception.  Social media companies, on the other hand, appear to be grappling with how to best enforce their policies and handle fake user accounts, which can have a significant influence on businesses, politics, and consumer behavior.  And influencers themselves, who may believe they are buying legitimate followers, are likely left with questions of their own.

Today’s presence of social media bots requires companies to be even more cognizant of certain practices online.  Although social media can be a powerful tool in any company’s advertising or marketing plan, companies need to be careful for example when considering whether and how to purchase social media followers.  And, as always, companies should avoid any online practices that appear illegal or fraudulent.

It was that time of year again—when everyone looks forward to watching commercials and debating which companies hit and which companies missed.  Yes, Super Bowl LII happened yesterday and there was no shortage of funny, sad, strange, and intriguing ads during the commercial breaks.  What those of us in Minnesota also learned was that advertising surrounding the Super Bowl is not limited to those made-for-tv commercials.  Indeed, the Minnesota Super Bowl Host Committee planned a 10-day extravaganza in downtown Minneapolis that featured not only NFL and Super Bowl-related advertising, but a number of company-sponsored ads, tents/booths, and activities.  The Host Committee also created the “Bold North” tagline, which was featured all over downtown and on various types of merchandise.  According to a recent article in the Twin Cities Pioneer Press, a small group of Host Committee members came up with the tag line three years ago and it stuck.  To see how the Host Committee utilized this tag line as a brand, take a look at the Minnesota Super Bowl website.

This post follows up on my prior blog post regarding the case pending at the United States Supreme Court involving the question of when a copyright holder can properly file a copyright infringement lawsuit.  The petitioner, Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp., has framed the issue in its petition for certiorari as follows:  “Whether ‘registration of [a] copyright claim has been made’ within the meaning of § 411(a) when the copyright holder delivers the required application, deposit, and fee to the Copyright Office, as the Fifth and Ninth Circuits have held, or only once the Copyright Office acts on that application, as the Tenth Circuit and, in the decision below, the Eleventh Circuit have held.”

34126235 - copyrightFollowing the parties’ respective briefing as to whether the Supreme Court should grant certiorari and thus review the case, the Supreme Court has now invited the United States Solicitor General to submit a brief as well.  In other words, the Supreme Court is interested in the Solicitor General’s view on the issue.  A recent American Bar Association article explains that the Supreme Court has increasingly requested the views of the Solicitor General in order to assess how the United States’ interests are being affected by a lower court’s decision and to determine whether the case is important enough or a circuit split is developed enough to warrant the Supreme Court’s review.  This may mean that the Supreme Court is considering granting certiorari in this case, but it will likely be some time before we learn of that.

Only a few days ago, my colleague Elizabeth Patton posted about the Federal Trade Commission’s release of its annual Data Book outlining the most recent statistical data about uses of the National Do Not Call Registry, a national database maintained by the FTC listing the telephone numbers of individuals and families who have requested that telemarketers not contact them.

Today, the FTC followed that up by issuing its biennial report to Congress on the Registry. The FTC reports that many businesses and organizations have attempted to exploit exceptions to the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and that these organizations have occasionally faced stiff civil penalties as a result. As such, companies engaged in telemarketing tactics should take the time to understand the TSR and its exceptions and make sure their practices are in compliance.

Among other things, the TSR makes it illegal for a business or individual taking part in “telemarketing” — defined as “a plan, program, or campaign . . . to induce the purchase of goods or services or a charitable contribution” involving more than one interstate telephone call — to call any phone number listed in the Registry. There is an exception, however, for calls to consumers with whom the company has an “established business relationship.” This exception allows sellers and their telemarketers to call customers who have recently made purchases or made payments, and to return calls to prospective customers who have made inquiries, even if their telephone numbers are on the Registry.

To fall within the “established business relationship” exception, the call must be to a person with whom the seller has an existing relationship based on: (1) the consumer’s purchase, rental, or lease of the seller’s goods or services or a financial transaction between the consumer and seller, within the eighteen months immediately preceding the date of a telemarketing call; or (2) the consumer’s inquiry or application regarding a product or service offered by the seller, within the three months immediately preceding the date of a telemarketing call.

According to the FTC, businesses routinely abuse this exception by engaging in calls in which the seller identified in the telemarketing call and the seller with whom the consumer has a relationship are technically part of the same legal entity, but are perceived by consumers to be different because they use different names or market different products.

Whether calls by or on behalf of sellers who are affiliates or subsidiaries of an entity with which a consumer has an established business relationship fall within the exception depends on consumer expectations. In other words, the question is whether the consumer likely be surprised by the call and find it inconsistent with having placed their phone number on the Registry. The greater the similarity between the seller and the subsidiary or affiliate in the eyes of the consumer, the more likely it is that the call will fall within the established business relationship exception.

Another issue arises when businesses place telemarketing calls to consumers after acquiring the consumers’ telephone numbers from others — so-called “lead generators” — without screening the numbers to remove those listed on the Registry. Such calls generally do not fall within the established business relationship exception because, while consumers may have a relationship with the lead generator, they do not have an established business relationship with the seller who has purchased the leads. Thus, a single sales pitch can produce multiple illegal calls, generating one or more calls from both the lead generators and the telemarketer.

The report also clarifies that the submission of a sweepstakes entry form does not create an “established business relationship” between the consumer and the company administering the sweepstakes, and notes several enforcement actions that have been brought against companies for making illegal calls that relied upon sweepstake entry forms as a basis for making telemarketing calls.

Recent actions by the FTC indicate that businesses and other organizations that use or rely on telemarketing tactics would be well-advised to review their telemarketing practices and ensure they are in compliance with the TSR and related federal regulations.

Fast food (hamburger fries and drink) illustrationFollowing upon on my earlier blog post about the Food & Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) menu labeling rule, which implements the nutrition labeling provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, the FDA recently released new supplemental guidance in advance of the current compliance deadline in May 2018.  This new guidance is meant to address concerns regarding implementation of the menu labeling rule and is open for public comment until early January 2018.  The FDA cautions that its guidance is not binding and is merely meant to represent the FDA’s current thinking on the issue.  For a more detailed discussion of the menu labeling rule and its impact, take a look at my colleague Alexander S. Radus’ recent post on the firm’s Franchise Law Update blog.

 

Pet products are subject to advertising, labeling, and safety-related laws and regulations just like any human product.  For an update on the Food & Drug Administration’s guidance on the compounding of animal drugs from bulk drug substances and the labeling of pet medications, see Nancy Halpern’s recent blog post on Fox Rothschild’s Animal Law blog.  For more information on the FDA’s regulation of pet and veterinary products, see the FDA’s website.

Last month, a journalism collective called the Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. (“Fourth Estate”) petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review a decision issued by the Eleventh Circuit involving the question of when a copyright holder can properly file a copyright infringement lawsuit.  At issue is 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), which states that “no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.”  Although copyright holders obtain copyright protection immediately upon the creation of a copyrightable work, copyright holders cannot initiate a lawsuit without satisfying the “registration” requirement set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 411(a).  According to a Copyright Office circular, this means that “registration (or refusal) is necessary to enforce the exclusive right of copyright through litigation.”

34126235 - copyrightHowever, the Circuit Courts are split as to whether “registration” as used in 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) includes the mere filing of a registration application or whether it requires that the Copyright Office have actually approved or denied the registration application.  Earlier this year, the Eleventh Circuit held in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com that “registration” requires the latter.  Because Fourth Estate had applied for copyrights that had not yet been decided upon by the Copyright Office, the Eleventh Circuit held that Fourth Estate could not properly bring its copyright infringement lawsuit against Wall-Street.com, a news website that Fourth Estate claims kept its news stories live after Fourth Estate’s membership was cancelled.  Therefore, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Fourth Estate’s complaint.

Now, Fourth Estate asks the Supreme Court to weigh in, reverse the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, and resolve the dispute amongst the Circuit Courts.  In the event the Supreme Court hears the case, copyright holders will finally obtain clarity as to whether they may file suit merely after filing an application for a copyright registration.  On the other hand, if the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, copyright holders will be forced to continue to evaluate which courts are, or may be, favorable on the issue.  If copyright holders are stuck with filing in an unfavorable court, they must evaluate the risks of waiting to file a lawsuit (and potentially paying for an expedited registration) or of jeopardizing dismissal of their complaint.

On November 1, 2017, the Supreme Court distributed the case for conference on November 21, 2017.  After that conference, we should know whether the Supreme Court has granted certiorari, and will thus hear the case, or whether the Circuit Court split will remain for the foreseeable future.

The attendance of a multi-day concert/festival in the desert seems to be a right of passage for millennials with events popping up all over the country. However, are you permitted to utilize the goodwill associated with those events to create your own event? The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Court) held that a company could not do so in granting a preliminary injunction in Coachella Music Festival, LLC and Goldenvoice, LLC v. Robert Trevor Simms.

Robert Trevor Simms (Simms) purported to create a film festival known as FILMCHELLA. Prior to filing for the injunction, Coachella Music Festival, LLC and Goldenvoice, LLC (collectively, Coachella) sent numerous cease and desist letters to Simms demanding that Simms change its name with no success. As such, Coachella was forced to file for a preliminary injunction to prevent Simms from using the terms, “Filmchella”, “Coachella for Movies” and “Coachella Film Festival” due to alleged trademark infringement. Coachella argued that Simms’ use of these terms will cause consumer confusion, dilution of its marks and other irreparable harm.

Generally, a claimant must fulfill the four-pronged test to allow a court to grant a preliminary injunction in its favor. Specifically, the moving party must establish that: (1) it has a likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying case, (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm if no action is taken, (3) the balance of inequities shifts in the favor of the moving party, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Here, the Court took a slightly different approach and used a sliding scale approach.

In granting the preliminary injunction, the Court noted that even if a moving party cannot fulfill the first prong of the test, a Court may decide that the moving party has sustained its burden if the moving party can show the balance of hardships shifts sharply in its favor of the moving party and the remaining two prongs of the test also weigh in its favor.

In examining whether Coachella had sustained its burden to obtain a preliminary injunction, the Court first examined the merits of the trademark infringement claim. Here, the Court determined that a protectable interest existed through Coachella’s trademark registrations for COACHELLA and CHELLA. Second, the Court held that the likelihood of confusion inquiry weighed in Coachella’s favor because both events are designed to be artistic, multi-day festivals; Coachella’s marks are widely known and strong; and using the suffix CHELLA is likely to confuse consumers as to the affiliation with Coachella. However, Coachella failed to demonstrate that it is likely to succeed on the merits of the underlying claim because the two events are focused on different mediums of entertainment; the marks look and sound different; no actual confusion has been demonstrated; Coachella failed to submit concrete evidence that the two events compete with one another; and Simms’ lacked the intent to confuse consumers. As such, Coachella is required to demonstrate that it fulfills the “shifts sharply” rule in its favor.

In this case, the Court held that Coachella sustained its burden. First, Simms’ event occurred prior to the issuance of this order so the potential injury to Simms is greatly decreased. Further, the issuance of this order does not prohibit Simms’ from conducting other film festivals under a different name. Additionally, Simms’ continued use of the potentially infringing mark is likely to cause serious, irreparable harm to Coachella with respect to potential damage to its reputation and dilution of its trademarks. Lastly, it is in the public interest to grant this injunction to prevent potential customer confusion. As such, the Court held that Coachella sustained its burden and granted the preliminary injunction.

What this decision demonstrates is a court’s willingness to grant a preliminary injunction despite a moving party failing to show a likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying claim. This is a big win for large companies seeking to protect their brands. It’s a hit to the little guys trying to make a name for themselves. Time will tell how far future courts will take this ruling, and what facts will support a determination that the balance of hardships “shifts sharply” in favor of the moving party.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) operates a single National Do Not Call Registry at donotcall.gov for both personal land lines and cell phones.  Although the FTC notes that the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) regulations prohibit telemarketers from utilizing automated dialers to call cell phone numbers without a consumer’s prior consent, the FTC allows consumers to “register” cell phone numbers (in addition to land line numbers) on the Registry in order to notify telemarketers that they don’t want to receive unsolicited telemarketing calls.  Once a consumer registers a particular number, it will stay on the Registry until the consumer cancels the registration or discontinues service for that number.

If a consumer receives an unwanted sales call after more than 31 days have passed since placing a number on the Registry, the FTC encourages reporting that call.  However, the FTC notes that the Registry only prohibit sales calls, meaning that companies may still make certain calls like political calls, charitable calls, debt collection calls, informational calls, and telephone survey calls.  In addition, companies may make a sales call to a consumer if they have recently done business with the consumer or received written permission from the consumer.

In light of developing technology, the FTC has seen an increase in the last several years of illegal sales calls, particularly calls with pre-recorded messages and fake caller ID information known as “robocalls.”  The FTC prohibits robocalls that promote the sale of any good or service.  However, the FTC notes that certain pre-recorded messages are permitted — e.g. purely informational calls, political calls, calls from certain health care providers, calls related to collecting a debt, and calls made by banks, telephone carriers, and charities.

To combat illegal sales calls and robocalls, the FTC reports that it has sued hundreds of companies/individuals and obtained over a billion dollars, is coordinating with law enforcement and industry groups, and is pursuing the development of technology-based solutions.  According to the FTC, companies that violate the Registry or conduct an illegal robocall may be fined up to $40,654 per call.  Thus, companies should always make sure to follow proper procedures when making sales calls, particularly pre-recorded sales calls, to consumers.