The Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB) process provides importers relief from duties on an item-by-item basis, up to $500,000 annually. On April 16, 2015, Senators Rob Portman (R-OH), Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) introduced bipartisan legislation proposing to reform the MTB process. Many companies consider the new legislation a much overdue step that assists…

On April 14, 2015, the long awaited rules governing union elections went into effect. These so-called ambush election rules were delayed since they were first proposed in 2011 due to a number of legal roadblocks. If your company is being organized under the new rules, everything you knew about the process has likely changed. In fact, these are the broadest sweeping changes in union elections in half a century.

The biggest change is the time between the union filing a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) until the actual union election, so instead of 42 days it will now be as little as 11 days. Who benefits from this reduction? Many business groups argue that the reduction is to allow unions to gain the upper hand in winning union elections. The shortened time frame can allow unions to organize a workforce secretly for months and then spring an election on a company who has one week to respond to the union’s “ambush.”

Below are a few highlights of what employers can expect under the new rules:

On April 16, several pieces of key legislation were introduced that set the stage for a Bipartisan, Bicameral International Trade Package.  Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) along with Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced long-awaited trade legislation to reauthorize Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and renew several trade preference and liberalization programs.  TPA expired in 2007 and is necessary for the Obama Administration to move forward and conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations.

Dealing with union organizing campaigns just became more difficult for employers. On April 14, 2015, the long anticipated National Labor Relations Board’s Rules governing union organizing campaigns and elections went into effect. These so-called “ambush” election rules will likely catch companies off guard when they are faced with a new union organizing campaign.  In fact,…

The General Counsel’s office of the NLRB issued a memo this week setting forth its position on a variety of different matters as to the new rules and regulations regarding the election process which will be effective April 14, 2015. These are the first major changes in the election process since the 1930’s and they will be significant. Most importantly, the timeline from the point of the filing of a petition to holding an election is greatly compressed. In theory, there could be an election conducted as soon as seventeen days after the petition is filed with the Agency. Indeed, the General Counsel’s office has indicated to the Regional Offices that they expect elections to proceed (either by stipulation or post hearing) in the seventeen day to thirty day time frame. The latter number reflecting those situations in which there is a hearing held and there needs to be a ruling by the Regional office.

In Part 1, we addressed the pros and cons of molding your mark directly into your goods in the context of 3D printing. In Part 2 of this series, we evaluated potential benefits and pitfalls that businesses may encounter when applying a mark to products at a later stage in manufacturing (e.g., via sticker or ink-printing). Here, we will look at two counterfeiting scenarios: Case 1, in which your mark has been molded or 3D printed into your product, and Case 2, in which your mark is ink-printed on your product.

In both scenarios, you have no utility patents, design patents, trade dress, or copyrights with which to protect your product. Of course, this addresses a particularly limited situation. However, a great number of businesses find themselves in a similar position. Not all products can be patented. Not all products are proper subjects for trade dress or copyright protection.

In both cases, along comes a so-called “counterfeiter” who obtains a specimen of your product, scans it with a 3D scanner, and starts making copies. In Case 1, the 3D scanner acquires a scan of your mark on your product. The copies made by the counterfeiter in Case 1 therefore also include your mark, leading to clear-cut trademark infringement. However, in Case2, the mark is not detected by the 3D scanner, and is therefore not included on the copies.

In Part 1 of this series, we addressed the impact of 3D printing on companies that mold their marks directly into their goods. Now, in Part 2, we will evaluate potential benefits and pitfalls that businesses may encounter when applying a mark to products at a later stage in manufacturing (e.g., via sticker or ink-printing).

Many companies decide not to mold or 3D print their marks directly into their product. Such a decision may be based on a cost analysis, or on the desire to remain agile in the marketplace. As discussed previously, such costs may fall drastically while agility will greatly improve as 3D printing becomes more widespread. Even so, many companies are simply unable to mold or 3D print their marks directly into their products. The product may be too small to directly bear a trademark at all, or may not have an externally visible surface to serve as a suitable location to display a mark.

In a previous series of posts, we explored several copyright issues as they apply to 3D printing. In this series, we will address the impact of 3D printing on trademark infringement by counterfeiting. Here, we will address the pros and cons of molding your mark directly into your goods in the context of 3D printing and counterfeiting.

In Part 2 of this series, we will evaluate potential benefits and pitfalls that businesses may encounter when applying a mark to products at a later stage in manufacturing (e.g., via sticker or ink-printing).

In Part 3, we will look at some hypothetical “counterfeiting” and trademark enforcement situations, and discuss the impact of 3D printing your mark into your product as compared to ink-printing.