Q&A with Franchise Pundit Founders
April 28, 2006
In this Q&A, FBLA talks with Robert Boulter and Ryan Knoll, the founders of FranchisePundit.com, a blog and discussion forum that covers business and legal issues in franchising. Since its inception in April 2005, visitor traffic to Franchise Pundit (www.franchisepundit.com) has grown exponentially, as franchisees, prospective franchisees, and franchisors read and respond to its no-nonsense, practical advice and observations.
Franchise Industry Must Tackle Privacy
April 28, 2006
Consumers are growing more sensitive about the privacy of their financial information, and franchisors are no different than other businesses needing to become more attentive to protecting customer data. 'Information privacy and security is one of the most fast-paced and constantly changing areas of the law today,' stated Kirk Nahra, chair, Wiley Rein & Fielding's privacy practice, in a conference call on April 20, targeted specifically to the privacy challenges that franchises face.
Safeguarding Confidential Employee Records
April 28, 2006
The electronic age has increased numerous workplace efficiencies, the most significant of which are obtaining, storing, using and transferring data. Yet these benefits to data management have not come without burdens. Because information has become increasingly easy to obtain and transfer, employers must take precautionary measures to ensure that confidential data is adequately protected. This applies not just to proprietary business information, but also to confidential employee data. This article provides an overview of statutory, constitutional and common law concerns with respect to obtaining and maintaining confidential employee information, and penalties that employers may face for failing to protect the security of confidential employee records.
Bit Parts
April 28, 2006
Collective Bargaining Agreements/Waiver of Judicial Forum<br>Concert Injuries/Negligence<br>Copyright Transfer/Writing Requirement<br>Television-Programming Dispute/Judicial Forum<br>BOOK RELEASE: 'Music, Money and Success,' 5th Edition by Jeffrey Brabec and Todd Brabec<br>Upcoming Event: The Third Pacific Northwest Arts and Entertainment Symposium
IP News
April 28, 2006
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Is 'No Use' Always a 'Fair Use'?
April 28, 2006
In order to avoid liability for trademark infringement relating to the sale of keywords corresponding to trademarks, search engines, including Google, are attacking the concept that trademark owners should be able to protect the 'commercial magnetism' of their marks. Recently, in <i>Rescue.com v. Google, Inc.</i>, No. 5:04-CV-1056 (N.D.N.Y.), Google argued that the trademark laws 'are not meant to protect consumer good will [sic] created through extensive, skillful, and costly advertising.' Google's Reply Brief at 4 n.4 (2005) (citing <i>Smith v. Chanel, Inc.</i>, 402 F.2d 562, 566 (9th Cir. 1968)).
You Own, Store And Manage Data
April 28, 2006
Today, the volume of such laws is staggering. As perhaps fits the regional, and often local, level of business in the United States ' and how business is regulated here ' many states have stepped into the breach and enacted legislation requiring data security, as well as notice to consumers, when security breaches occur. And although there is no federal law that generally requires information security, recent Federal Trade Commission actions indicate that the FTC is, for the first time, imposing a general duty to establish information security under the Federal Trade Commission Act. <br>Compliance with these laws isn't only a legal reality, but a business one, as the frequent and well-publicized data-security incidents of recent years demonstrate. New notice laws require companies to advise customers of the high-profile data-security incidents that frequently make headlines. Now, companies must deal with increasingly complex requirements that are not consistent from state to state. The price of failure can be high ' including significant penalties, as well as unfavorable press coverage.
Privacy, Please!
April 28, 2006
We're there, and we know it: The union of the Internet and commerce has led to increases in productivity, convenience and access for consumers everywhere. At the same time, it has spawned volumes of acute privacy concern. It's not unusual to hear of businesses inadvertently publicizing consumers' personal data ' or, worse, hackers obtaining personal financial information. It seems to happen all too often at credit-card companies, banks and the local supermarket.<br>Of course, concerns over these privacy issues have reached the sector of the legal trade that advises and defends the banking industry, and with a vengeance, as evidenced by the various privacy related provisions incorporated in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA). In particular, the BAPCPA incorporated the Leahy-Hatch Amendment, also known as The Privacy Policy Enforcement in Bankruptcy Act of 2001 (PPEBA), which I had the honor of drafting. In particular, the PPEBA, in order to address certain privacy concerns, amended Bankruptcy Code '363(b)(1) and added pre-conditions to the sale or use of consumer data; added a new '332, creating the 'privacy ombudsman'; and defined 'personally identifiable data' in '101(41A). This article will review the development of these amendments, and analyze their potential impact for practitioners.
