Last week we discussed ways that you can use a competitor’s mark in comparative advertising.  This week we are discussing ways you can use a competitor’s mark in a descriptive manner under the doctrine of Descriptive Fair Use.   In this type of use, the mark is not being used as a trademark, which greatly reduces or eliminates the possibility of the use being found to be trademark infringement.

Under the doctrine of Descriptive Fair Use, a party, even a direct competitor, may use another party’s descriptive trademark to describe their own product or services.  Descriptive Fair Use requires:

  1. That the mark being used actually describes a person, place or attribute of goods or services; and
  2. The mark must also be used in the normal course of language.

In addition, the mark must be used in the text portions of an ad and not as a banner or in any other manner that sets it apart from the other words in the sentence or paragraph in which it is used. 

On January 17, 2013, the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services issued its final rule modifying the HIPAA privacy, security, enforcement, and breach notification rules. The final rule became effective on March 26, 2013, and providers have just over a month left to comply with the new rule.  Compliance is required by September 23, 2013.

Changes to Breach Identification

Under the old standard, a reportable breach was an unauthorized use or disclosure of PHI that posed a significant risk of financial, reputational or other harm to the affected individual. Under the new standard, all unauthorized uses and disclosures of PHI are presumed to be reportable breaches unless, following a risk assessment, it is determined that there is a low probability that the PHI has been compromised.

Previously, we recommended including the following factors in breach risk assessments:

  1. the type and amount of PHI disclosed;
  2. to whom the PHI was disclosed; and
  3. the risk of further disclosure.

Today we are resuming our Branding 101 series!

As we discussed previously, a trademark audit is an important inventory tool that should be used to be sure that the trademark assets of the company are being properly used and protected. Another important function of a trademark audit is to be sure that you are using only your own trademarks; or, if you are using your competitors’ marks, that such use is correct and proper.

In general, a company should only be using its own trademarks. However, there are some circumstances where it is acceptable to use a third party’s trademark in your advertising. These exceptions are often referred to as “fair use” of the other’s mark. There are several fair use exceptions that will be discussed over the next couple of weeks. Today, we will start with a discussion of the proper way to use a competitor’s trademark in a comparative advertisement.

It is possible to avoid trade mark infringement while using the registered trade mark of another company in a comparative advertisement. However, there are rules and guidelines that have to be followed to avoid liability. In addition, apart from the trademark infringement issues, comparative advertising is prone to being considered misleading or deceptive, unless it is done carefully.

Welcome to our new series on HIPAA!

Whether you are feeling a little rusty on HIPAA issues or trying to figure out the new Omnibus rule, we hope you will find this information helpful.  Each week, we will be discussing a new aspect of HIPAA including:

  • HIPAA basics
  • New Omnibus regulations
  • Responding to subpoenas
  • HIPAA disasters
  • Enforcement

…

Do you have questions about your institution’s obligations under the Clery Act?

If so, we hope you will join us for a webinar focusing on medical, nursing and allied health school obligations to disclose information about on-campus crime.  We will discuss the essential points for compliance and determination of Clery geography.

The webinar is Wednesday,…

Recent national tragedies have refocused the nation on an important question:

Can or should a physician face civil liability for failing to warn of the dangers posed by a patient who later commits violence?

Husch Blackwell attorneys Greg Minana and Justin Stephens addressed this question under Missouri law in an article published in the May/June issue of Missouri Medicine.   In…

Alzheimer patients wandering off.  Jewelry stolen from a resident’s room.  Arthritic hands unable to maneuver a key in a lock.  All of these can be issues at senior living communities.  However, these issues may become less common as more and more senior communities are moving toward digital key systems.

According to an article in Seniors…

The author wishes to thank Porter Durham for his assistance in preparing this post.  Porter is currently a Summer Associate with the firm.   

On June 24, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett that state law design-defect claims focusing on labeling of generic drugs are preempted by federal law. In many ways, the Bartlett decision can be seen as a major victory for generic drug manufacturers, which now enjoy far more protection from state law product liability suits. However, the Court did leave open some questions about tort liability for generic drug manufacturers.

In its holding, the Court analyzed the clash between New Hampshire tort law, which the Court concluded imposes a duty on manufacturers to ensure that their products are not “unreasonably dangerous,” and the federal Hatch-Waxman Act, which requires that the generic version of a name-brand pharmaceutical be chemically identical and bioequivalent to the name-brand version and that it carry the same labeling as that approved for the name-brand version. The Court reasoned that it would be impossible for a generic drug manufacturer to abide by both the state law (requiring it to alter the formula or labeling of a product to prevent “unreasonable danger”) and the federal law (forbidding the same). Accordingly, the Court held that because under the Supremacy Clause federal law pre-empts state law where they conflict, the New Hampshire standard could not be enforced.

The Court also dismissed the “stop-selling theory.” Recalling its decision in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, the Bartlett Court acknowledged that a generic manufacturer could abide by both federal and state law by not selling its product within states where state law clashes with federal law or by not manufacturing its product at all. However, the Court argued that this sweeping solution is no solution at all, asserting that pre-emption cases have never required that an actor stop acting “to satisfy both his federal- and state-law obligations.” Moreover, the Court argued that impossibility pre-emption would be virtually meaningless if a claim of impossibility could be defeated by “the option of ceasing to act.”

Bartlett follows closely the Court’s holding in PLIVA (that federal drug law pre-empts state law and bars claims for inadequate warning) and extends that holding to claims brought for design defects. In doing so, Bartlett effectively bars product liability suits against generic drug manufacturers for anything other than manufacturing defects. While this bar has profoundly negative implications for potential plaintiffs, it largely benefits consumers on the whole. Because the Court’s decision reinforces the limitations on alterations to formula and packaging placed on generic drug manufacturers by the Hatch-Waxman Act, it further facilitates access to affordable generic drugs. Moreover, the reduced likelihood of being called to defend costly product liability suits also likely lowers the overall cost of doing business for generic drug manufactures, which again means greater access to affordable prescription drugs for consumers.

Are you still trying to understand the changes made in the HIPAA Omnibus Rule?

Do you want an opportunity to ask questions and hear how other providers are handing HIPAA issues?

Do you need a chance to brush up on your HIPAA knowledge and evaluate current strategies? 

If so, then you should consider attending one…

Husch Blackwell and Texas-based law firm Brown McCarroll will combine ranks effective July 15. With this merger, our firm will have one of the largest healthcare law practices in the country with over 110 attorneys focused on the healthcare, life sciences and pharmaceutical industries.

The merger will provide even greater depth to our healthcare practice…