In one of our first posts, we discussed the five categories of trademarks (Generic – Descriptive – Suggestive – Arbitrary – Fanciful) and how a mark became more protectable as it moved up the line. Laudatory trademarks, trademarks that attribute a quality or excellence to the goods or services, are often included in this list as “descriptive marks” requiring a showing of secondary meaning to be protectable. However, it has been recognized that some laudatory marks do not describe any feature of the product it is used with, but rather suggest that the product is of high quality or “better” quality than other similar products. In these cases, the laudatory composite mark may be considered to be suggestive.

Recently, Husch Blackwell partners Stephen Cockerham and Kevin Koronka presented a webinar to Texas employers concerning the impact legislation concerning gun rights may have on employers. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appellate court with jurisdiction over Texas federal district courts, recently released a decision concerning employee gun rights of which employers, particularly those with Mississippi employees, should take note.

The U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published a memo (Ref:  S&C: 16-33-NH) Aug. 5, 2016, to state nursing home survey agency directors related to protecting resident privacy and prohibiting mental abuse related to photographs and audio/video recordings by nursing home staff. The memo is a response to recent media reports regarding inappropriate posting to social media of pictures of nursing home residents – namely a disconcerting report by ProPublica detailing 47 incidents in which workers shared photos or videos with friends or the public – these incidents involved both mistreatment of residents and inadvertent disclosure or patient health information. Within 30 days of the memo, surveyors are to implement changes to address these issues.

This week we are discussing ways you can use a third party’s mark to identify the third party’s goods or services while also advertising your own. For example, a dental office wants to let potential patients know that it uses a specific brand of dental veneers. The law allows XYZ Dental to factually state:

“XYZ Dental specializes in the fitting and application of ABC® brand veneers.”

This type of use is known as nominative fair use and as with comparative advertising and descriptive fair use, there are rules that need to be followed.

Backing up electronic health record data may become an important aspect of complying with and mitigating risk under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) if the U.S. Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) heeds legislators’ recommendations.

Employers often misconstrue the terms “non-exempt employee” and “hourly employee,” leading them to believe the terms are interchangeable. But, not all non-exempt employees are necessarily hourly employees. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) allows employers to pay their non-exempt employees on a salary basis as long as they meet minimum wage and overtime mandates. Paying certain non-exempt employees on a salary basis may prove a useful tool as healthcare institutions weigh changes in employee compensation practices necessitated by new FLSA regulations (previously discussed).

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, No. 15-7 (U.S. June 16, 2016) upholds the viability of the implied certification theory of False Claims Act liability. But it also makes cases arising from minor instances of noncompliance much harder to prove. The Court held that a knowing failure to disclose a violation of a material statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirement can create False Claims Act liability. The requirement need not be an express condition of payment, but it must be material to the government’s decision to pay.