Administrative & Regulatory Archives - Page 13 of 112

Triggers That Require Reporting Companies to File Updated Beneficial Ownership Interest Reports

On January 1, 2024, Congress enacted the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) as part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 and its annual National Defense Authorization Act. Every entity that meets the definition of a “reporting company” under the CTA and does not qualify for an exemption must file a beneficial ownership information report (a “BOI Report”) with the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”). Reporting companies include any entity that is created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the law of a state or Indian tribe (this includes corporations, LLCs, and limited partnerships).

In most circumstances, a reporting company only has to file an initial BOI Report to comply with the CTA’s reporting requirements. However, when the required information reported by an individual or reporting company changes after a BOI Report has been filed or when either discovers that the reported information is inaccurate, the individual or reporting company must update or correct the reporting information.

Deadline: If an updated BOI Report is required, the reporting company has 30 calendar days after the change to file an updated report.

What triggers an updated BOI Report? There is no materiality threshold as to what warrants an updated report. According to FinCEN, any change to the required information about the reporting company or its beneficial owners in its BOI Report triggers a responsibility to file an updated BOI Report.

Some examples that trigger an updated BOI Report:

Any change to the information reported for the reporting company, such as registering a new DBA, new principal place of business, or change in legal name.
A change in the beneficial owners exercising substantial control over the reporting company, such as a new CEO, a sale (whether as a result of a new equity issuance or transfer of equity) that changes who meets the ownership interest threshold of 25%, or the death of a beneficial owner listed in the BOI Report.
Any change to any listed beneficial owner’s name, address, or unique identifying number provided in a BOI report.
Any other change to existing ownership information that was previously listed in the BOI Report.

Below is a reminder of the information report on the BOI report:

(1) For a reporting company, any change to the following information triggers an updated report:
- Full legal name;
- Any trade or “doing business as” name;
- A complete current address (cannot be a post office box);
- The state, territory, possession, tribal or foreign jurisdiction of formation; and
  TIN.
(2) For the beneficial owners and company applicants, any change to the following information triggers an updated report:
- Full legal name of the individual;
- Date of the birth of the individual;
- A complete current address;
- A unique identifying number and the issuing jurisdiction from one of the following non-expired documents; and
- An image of the document.

It is important to note that if a beneficial owner or company applicant has a FinCEN ID and any change is made to the required information for either individual, then such individuals are responsible for updating their information with FinCEN directly. This is not the responsibility of the reporting company

DOE Ramping Up General Service Lamp Enforcement

Largely out of public view, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has been ramping up enforcement of its “backstop” efficiency standard and sales prohibition regarding general service lamps, including incandescent bulbs. After a period of enforcement discretion (previewed in published guidance) that has now passed, we expect at least some of DOE’s efforts to become public in the coming months as the Department begins to settle enforcement actions and assess civil penalties against non-compliant lamp manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers.

The Final Rule

Following a rulemaking process that took many twists and turns over the past decade (as summarized in a prior alert), as of July 25, 2022, the sale of any general service lamp that does not meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt hour (lm/W) is prohibited. 10 C.F.R. § 430.32(dd).

A “general service lamp” (GSL) is a lamp that:

Has an ANSI base;
For an integrated lamp, is able to operate at a voltage or in a voltage range of 12 or 24 volts, 100–130 volts, 220–240 volts, or 277 volts;
For a non-integrated lamp, is able to operate at any voltage;
Has an initial lumen output of greater than or equal to 310 lumens (or 232 lumens for modified spectrum general service incandescent lamps) and less than or equal to 3,300 lumens;
Is not a light fixture;
Is not an LED downlight retrofit kit; and
Is used in general lighting applications.

10 C.F.R. § 430.2. GSLs include, but are not limited to, general service incandescent lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, general service light-emitting diode lamps, and general service organic light-emitting diode lamps. GSLs consist of pear-shaped A-type bulbs, but also five categories of specialty incandescent lamps (rough service lamps, shatter-resistant lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, high lumen incandescent lamps, and vibration service lamps), incandescent reflector lamps, and a variety of decorative lamps (T-Shape, B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G25, G30, S, M-14 of 40W or less, and candelabra base lamps). DOE maintains exclusions for twenty-six categories of lamps, including appliance lamps and colored lamps, among others. Id.

Approximately 30 percent of light bulbs sold across the United States in 2020 were incandescent or halogen incandescent lamps. Almost all such lamps would fail to meet the statutory 45 lm/W backstop standard. Because many LED lamps, in contrast, can meet the 45 lm/W standard, DOE’s actions are accelerating a transition to LEDs.

Federal and State Enforcement

During this transition, DOE enforcement is likely to most aggressively target manufacturers and importers continuing to distribute non-compliant lamps, and will include the assessment of civil penalties. DOE is authorized to assess penalties of as much as $560 for each non-compliant lamp sold. While enforcement actions typically settle for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, DOE has obtained seven-figure settlements for more significant violations or where a business has repeatedly failed to comply.

Specifically with respect to general service lamps (but not for other covered products), the Department is also authorized to enforce against distributors and retailers who sell non-compliant lamps, and early indications are that DOE is beginning to act on that authority. Because the federal backstop standard is enforced at the time of sale, lamps imported into the United States before July 25, 2022, are not exempt from enforcement if sold after the deadline.

Separately, some states—including California—also enforce their own efficiency standards for products not subject to federal standards. The California Energy Commission recently settled an enforcement action for over $120,000 against a company that was selling state-regulated LEDs that were not certified in California’s compliance database prior to sale, and which did not meet state standards.

Next Steps

Businesses operating at any stage in the lamp supply chain should, therefore, take immediate steps to ensure they are not making, importing, distributing, or selling to consumers any lamps that do not meet applicable federal or state requirements. To determine whether a particular general service lamp meets the backstop standard, one can take the total lumens produced by the lamp and divide it by its wattage. If the calculated number is below 45, and the product does not qualify for any of the listed exclusions, then it is non-compliant, and its continued sale could prompt federal enforcement.

This Michigan Supreme Court Case Has the Potential to Guide Drone and Air Rights Law for the Nation

While at first glance the Michigan Supreme Court case of Long Lake Township v. Maxon, appears to be a simple zoning dispute with a Fourth Amendment twist, the real impact of the case may ultimately fall on drones and air rights law, particularly the rights of landowners to exclude drones from flying in the airspace immediately above their land, and relatedly the ability of state and municipal governments to regulate such flights.

The history of the case is straightforward. When the Michigan municipality of Long Lake Township sought to enforce a zoning ordinance against Todd Maxon, Mr. Maxon asked the trial court to exclude all evidence obtained by flying a drone over Mr. Maxon’s land. After the trial court refused to exclude the evidence on the grounds that the photographs did not violate the Fourth Amendment, an appellate court ruled that the Fourth Amendment issue was irrelevant because a legal proceeding to enforce a local zoning ordinance is not required to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment (the requirement to exclude such evidence is known as the “exclusionary rule”).

Now, we await the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision as to whether the exclusionary rule applies, and if so, whether the use of the drone to inspect Mr. Maxon’s land for zoning compliance violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches.

A decision on that second question will center on landowners’ right to exclude drones from the airspace immediately above their land, because a warrantless search violates the Fourth Amendment if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched area that society recognizes as reasonable. It follows then, that, if a landowner has no legal right to exclude drones from flying over his or her land, then it would be inherently unreasonable to expect privacy in portions of their property that can be observed from such public drone flight paths above their land, as courts routinely rule that there cannot be a reasonable expectation of privacy in land that can be observed from adjacent, publicly-accessible space.

As drone technology developed from a curious, niche hobby into a potential billion-dollar business with the ability to change the way packages are delivered to our homes and offices, legal debates quickly followed about whether all airspace above the blades of the grass constitutes “publicly navigable airspace” that is beyond the control of the landowners below, or if those landowners maintain some residual control over some airspace above their land. A decision from the Michigan Supreme Court on this issue would be one of the highest level state or federal courts to confront this question.

Hopefully, the exclusionary rule will not prevent a thorough analysis of the issue, as its resolution will ultimately be necessary to confirm the permissibility of local government regulation of the time, place, and manner of drone flights, and landowners’ airspace control rights, and only when those questions are resolved will drone technology be able to fully flourish in the United States as part of a legal regime that acknowledges and respects the traditional property rights of landowners.

This is a bellwether. This decision will affect the course of not just Michigan, but all of America about how it treats drone surveillance.

Michigan Supreme Court Expands Employer Exposure to Public Policy Retaliation Claims

In Michigan, various state employment laws prohibit employers from retaliating against employees. But can an employee pursue a public policy retaliation claim against the employer in addition to a statutory retaliation claim?

On July 22, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that anti-retaliation provisions in two important workplace safety laws—the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”) and Michigan’s Occupational Safety and Health Act (“MIOSHA”)—do not preclude a plaintiff from also asserting a violation of public policy in court. Stegall v. Resource Technology Corp (Case No. 165450, decided July 22, 2024).

Cleveland Stegall, an IT specialist working at FCA through the staffing agency Resource Technology, complained internally about asbestos insulation issues at the assembly plant and threatened to file complaints with the government. He was subsequently terminated. Stegall sued both entities for wrongful discharge under OSHA and MIOSHA’s anti-retaliation provisions, as well as termination in violation of public policy.

At-will employees generally may be terminated for any reason (or no reason at all). But one exception to this rule is that certain terminations violate public policy and therefore create an actionable legal claim. This includes firings for “failure or refusal to violate a law” or exercising a right conferred by the Michigan Legislature.

Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals dismissed Stegall’s public policy claim because they concluded that the OSHA and MIOSHA laws already forbid retaliation. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed. It reasoned that the remedies under OSHA and MIOSHA are insufficient, pointing to the truncated 30-day period to file a complaint with the relevant government agency, the discretion granted to the respective investigating agency, and the employee’s lack of control over what occurs after a complaint has been filed. See 29 U.S.C. §660(c)(2) and MCL 408.1065(2).

What does this case mean for employers? The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision provides another avenue for employees to pursue retaliation claims, particularly where the employee raises workplace safety concerns. It is unclear, however, whether courts will extend this ruling and allow employees to pursue public policy wrongful discharge claims if the employee is also seeking relief under another anti-retaliation statute.

FTC/FDA Send Letters to THC Edibles Companies Warning of Risks to Children

Earlier this week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent cease-and-desist letters to several companies warning them that their products, which were marketed to mimic popular children’s snacks, ran the risk of unintended consumption of the Delta-8 THC by children. In addition to the FDA’s concerns regarding marketing an unsafe food additive, the agencies warned that imitating non-THC-containing food products often consumed by children through the use of advertising or labeling is misleading under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC noted that “preventing practices that present unwarranted health and safety risks, particularly to children, is one of the Commission’s highest priorities.”

The FTC’s focus on these particular companies and products shouldn’t come as a surprise. One such company advertises edible products labelled as “Stoney Ranchers Hard Candy,” mimicking the common Jolly Ranchers candy, and “Trips Ahoy” closely resembling the well-known “Chips Ahoy.” Another company advertises a product closely resembling a Nerds Rope candy, with similar background coloring, and copy-cats of the Nerds logo and mascot. This is not the first time the FTC has warned companies about the dangers of advertising products containing THC in a way that could mislead consumers, particularly minors. In July of 2023, the FTC sent cease-and-desist letters to six organizations for the same violations alleged this week – there companies copied popular snack brands such as Doritos and Cheetos, mimicking the brands’ color, mascot, font, bag style, and more.

This batch of warning letters orders the companies to stop marketing the edibles immediately, to review their products for compliance, and to inform the FTC within 15 days of the specific actions taken to address the FTC’s concerns. The companies also are required to report to the FDA on corrective actions taken.

Full Steam Ahead: NLRB Top Lawyer Signals Continued Focus On Injunction Actions

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Starbucks v. McKinney clarifying the standards courts must use when evaluating requests by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Many view this as, at least in some jurisdictions, heightening the standard the agency must meet in these cases.

NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memo on July 16 noting this ruling will not affect how her office views Section 10(j) cases. According to the press release, “General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo reaffirmed her commitment to seeking Section 10(j) injunctions after the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, which set a uniform four-part test applicable to all Section 10(j) injunction petitions.”

The statement then goes on to note, “General Counsel Abruzzo explained that, while the Supreme Court’s decision in Starbucks Corp. provides a uniform standard to be applied in all Section 10(j) injunctions nationwide, adoption of this standard will not have a significant impact on the Agency’s Section 10(j) program as the Agency has ample experience litigating injunctions under that standard and has a high rate of success in obtaining injunctions under the four-part test — a success rate equivalent to or higher than the success rate in circuit courts that applied the two-part test.”

Employers should take note, as the NLRB does indeed have a high success rate when seeking these injunctions against employers. For example, in fiscal year 2020, the agency prevailed in every 10(j) case it brought. These actions can be costly from a time and resources perspective for companies, as they are then forced to defend against alleged labor violations before both the NLRB and in federal court simultaneously.

Accordingly, while the recent Supreme Court ruling did offer a uniform standard and clarity around the legal framework for 10(j) cases, it appears this won’t cause a dip in the amount of such matters the NLRB brings.

The Five Largest SEC Whistleblower Awards from the First Half of 2024

In the first half of 2024, the SEC Whistleblower Program awarded over $18 million to whistleblowers who aided in the agency’s enforcement efforts. Below are the top five awards from the first half of 2024.

Since its inception in 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Whistleblower Program has made significant strides, granting over $1.9 billion in whistleblower awards. In the first half of 2024, over $18 million was awarded to individuals who voluntarily provided original information that led to a successful enforcement action, a testament to the program’s effectiveness.

Under the SEC Whistleblower Program, qualified whistleblowers can receive 10-30% of the funds collected from a successful enforcement action based on their tip. The SEC does not disclose identifying information about award recipients, ensuring their protection and the program’s integrity.

Following are the top five whistleblower awards of the first half 2024:

1. $3.6 Million

On June 17, the SEC granted two claimants a total of $3.6 million, with the first receiving $2,400,000 and the second receiving $1,200,000.

The SEC acknowledged the significant contribution of the first Claimant whose disclosure “caused the staff to open the investigation” and “provided ongoing assistance by participating in interviews and providing documents, which saved Commission resources by helping the staff obtain information in an efficient manner.”

Claimant Two “provided information that caused the staff to inquire concerning different conduct as part of a current investigation” and “provided ongoing assistance by participating in interviews and providing documents, which helped to expedite the staff’s investigation,” according to the award order.

The award document noted that Claimant Two received a reduced reward for reporting information to the commission months after the staff had opened its investigation. Furthermore, it was noted that Claimant One provided a higher level of assistance than Claimant Two and that Claimant One’s information ultimately formed the basis of more charges in the Covered Action.

2. $3.4 Million.

On May 31, the SEC granted a payment of $3.4 million to a single Claimant. Five others filed for an award for the Covered Action but were denied.

According to the SEC, “Claimant voluntarily provided original information that significantly contributed to the success of the Covered Action,” underscoring whistleblowers’ crucial role in enforcing securities regulations.
“Enforcement staff opened the Covered Action investigation based on a referral from staff in the Division of Examinations, and not because of information submitted by any of the claimants.” the agency states.

However, it notes that the whistleblower “met with Enforcement staff” and “provided new, helpful information that substantially advanced the investigation.

The SEC further explains that the awarded whistleblower suffered hardship as a result of blowing the whistle and that there were “high law enforcement interests in this matter.”

Two of the Claimants were denied because they did not have personal knowledge of the investigation’s opening. One Claimant was denied because their tip was primarily publicly available information, and another was denied because their information did not lead to the success of the Covered Action.

3. $2.5 MILLION

On June 20, the SEC awarded $2.5 million to Joint Claimants.

According to the SEC, “the record demonstrates that Joint Claimants voluntarily provided original information to the Commission that led to the successful enforcement of the Covered Action.”

The Joint Claimants “alerted Commission staff to the conduct, prompting an examination to be commenced that resulted in a referral to staff in the Division of Enforcement and the opening of an investigation,” the SEC explains in the award order.

They also “provided significant additional information and assistance during the course of the examination and investigation, including communicating with Commission staff multiple times, which helped to save staff time and resources.”

4. $2.4 Million

On April 3, the SEC granted two claimants a combined award of $2,400,000. The first Claimant received $2 million, and the second received $400,000.

According to the SEC, “Claimant 1 qualifies as a whistleblower and Claimant 1 voluntarily provided original information to the Commission that caused Enforcement staff to open an investigation that led to the successful enforcement of the Covered Action.”

However, in 2022, Claimant 2 was originally denied as the SEC claimed that their disclosure was made by a general counsel on behalf of an entity owned by Claimant 2 and not on behalf of Claimant 2 as an individual.

Following the SEC’s 2022 denial, the Claimant filed a petition for review of their denial in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The SEC then sought a remand in the case and requested further information from the Claimant.

The Claimant provided “a new declaration from the entity’s general counsel that expressly states that the general counsel represented Claimant 2 in Claimant 2’s personal capacity throughout the process of providing information regarding the Company to the SEC.”

The SEC thus determined that Claimant 2 did qualify as a whistleblower and had “voluntarily provided original information to the Commission that significantly contributed to the success of the Covered Action.”

This marked the first time the SEC awarded a whistleblower who appealed an award denial before a federal appeals court.

5. $2.4 Million

On April 25, an individual Claimant was awarded $2.4 million after voluntarily providing original information to the Commission.

According to the SEC, “after internally reporting concerns, Claimant submitted a tip to the Commission that prompted the opening of the investigation and thereafter provided continuing assistance to the staff.”

Brooke Burkhart and Avery Hudson also contributed to this article.

Supreme Court Decision Overturns Chevron: Impact on Cannabis Industry

Last month, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision and opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, significantly overruling the nearly 40-year-old precedent set by Chevron. The Chevron decision required federal courts to defer to a government agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute unless that interpretation was “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary” to the statute. This meant that if an agency such as the DEA published a bulletin or letter interpreting an ambiguous law, courts were generally bound to follow this interpretation due to the agency’s presumed expertise.

The Shift in Legal Interpretation

Loper Bright Enterprises has fundamentally changed this legal landscape. Now courts, rather than government agencies, are considered the best equipped to interpret ambiguous statutes. This shift means that a government agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute is now merely persuasive and not binding on the courts. This can be likened to a Pennsylvania court interpreting a Pennsylvania law and considering, but not being bound by, a Delaware state court’s interpretation of a similar corporate law. Just as Pennsylvania courts can choose to defer to, distinguish from, or disregard Delaware court decisions, federal courts now have the same discretion regarding agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

Impact on the Cannabis Industry

This change has significant implications for the cannabis industry. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) enforces federal drug laws and has issued numerous letters and bulletins determining the legality of various cannabis substances. For example, the DEA issued opinions that seemingly argued that Delta-8 THC products and THCA products were not allowed under the 2018 Farm Bill. I have generally disagreed with these interpretations, believing that the DEA incorrectly cited statutes related to hemp at harvest rather than downstream products.

With Loper Bright Enterprises, these DEA letters will lose their authoritative value. Courts are no longer bound to follow DEA interpretations and can more readily consider arguments opposing the DEA’s stance. This development is critical for the cannabis industry, as it opens the door for courts to reinterpret federal drug laws and potentially challenge the DEA’s restrictive interpretations of the 2018 Farm Bill.

The Importance of This Shift

The overruling of Chevron by Loper Bright Enterprises marks a pivotal change in administrative law, particularly impacting the cannabis industry. This shift of interpretive authority from government agencies to the courts means there is now greater potential for legal challenges to restrictive interpretations of cannabis laws. This change enhances the ability of cannabis businesses and advocates to contest adverse decisions and interpretations by the DEA and other agencies, potentially leading to more favorable outcomes for the industry.

Trademark Insights: What the First Precedential TTAB Expungement Decision Means for You

As a trademark applicant, encountering a prior registration that obstructs your path to registration is never a pleasant experience (nor for your attorneys who have to inform you about it). The frustration only intensifies when it becomes evident that the registered mark has never been used for the specified goods or services. Until 2021, the sole recourse with the USPTO to address this issue was filing a Petition to Cancel, with the hope that the registrant would not respond, leading to a swift default judgment. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and a response means expending an appreciable amount of time and money before resolution can be obtained, often through a settlement agreement.

In late 2021, the landscape changed with the passing of the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020, which brought about two new ex parte proceedings: reexamination and expungement. The goal was to provide faster, more efficient, and less expensive alternatives to contested cancellation proceedings at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”).

Expungement proceedings, in particular, offer a means to cancel trademarks that have never been used in commerce. “Any party can request cancellation [by the USPTO Director] of some or all of the goods or services in a registration because the registrant never used the trademark in commerce with those goods or services.” This action is available against all types of registrations, but must be requested between three and ten years after the registration date.

Now, after two-and-a-half years of these proceedings, on July 1, 2024, the Board issued its first precedential decision in an expungement proceeding: In Re Locus Link USA.

In July 2022, a third party filed expungement actions against Locus Link USA’s (the “Registrant”) two SMARTLOCK registrations, alleging nonuse of the marks for the specified goods: “components for air conditioning and cooling systems, namely, evaporative air coolers.” The USPTO Director found sufficient evidence of nonuse and proposed cancellation. The registrant responded with evidence of use in the form of specimens showing connectors for metal tubing and air condition components, arguing that this evidence was sufficient, and had been previously accepted by the USPTO during examination. The USPTO maintained the cancellation, noting that the subject registrations only covered the specific goods following the term “namely” in the identification, here “evaporative air coolers.”

On appeal, the Registrant argued that the SMARTLOCK marks are in use in connection with the goods identified in the registration because the identification of goods covers components for evaporative air coolers. The Board disagreed and affirmed the USPTO’s decision.

Goods and services in an application should “state common names for goods or services, be as complete and specific as possible, and avoid indefinite words and phrases.” TMEP § 1402.03(a), cited in In re Solid State Design Inc., Ser. No. 87269041, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 1, at *18 (TTAB 2018).

Applicants take notice: “the goods or services listed after the term ‘namely’ must further define the introductory wording that proceeds ‘namely’ using definite terms within the scope of the introductory words.” In other words, the goods or services that come after “namely” must specifically define the broader category mentioned before. Essentially, “namely” helps to clarify otherwise vague descriptions.

In this case, the broad category is “components for air conditioning and cooling systems.” The applications were only accepted for registration because they specified “namely, evaporative air coolers.” This means the SMARTLOCK marks cover evaporative air coolers that are components for air cooling systems. It does not cover component parts that go into making evaporative air coolers.

Key Takeaways

Grammar Matters. Properly identifying goods and services in an application is vital. The USPTO continues to increase its specificity requirements for identifying goods and services, and applicants need to ensure not only original identifications, but also amendments to identifications proposed by an examiner accurately and correct reflect their goods and services. In Locus Link, was the Board, splitting hairs? Maybe, but the lesson is critically important for obtaining and maintaining trademark registrations.
Specimen Acceptance Isn’t Conclusive. The acceptance of specimens by the USPTO does not control the ultimate question of use. Although not a new concept, one to keep in mind. It is more important to have multiple records of proper and consistent trademark use than to rely on a single specimen. It is wise to retain an attorney with experienced eyes to review your use specimens prior to filing for both registration and for maintenance of your registrations.
File for New Marks as Necessary. While the SMARTLOCK marks were never in use for the goods, nonuse or lack of coverage can happen. Businesses expand and evolve over the years and so too should the portfolio of trademark registrations. It is important to occasionally audit your trademark portfolio to look for any gaps in coverage for certain marks and certain goods and services. Do not just think you have proper coverage, be sure so you are in the best offensive and defensive position possible for your brand. You never know who else is out there, looking to use your mark. If your registrations are in not order, your marks are vulnerable.

It is still early days for these new ex parte proceedings, but the hope is that they will prove a useful tool moving forward. This precedential decision although not groundbreaking does provide a good overview of the relatively new expungement proceeding and some good reminders for trademark owners.

United States | H-1B, AOS, Schedule A and Other Regulatory Agenda Updates

According to the recent publication of the Spring 2024 regulatory agenda, the Biden administration has the H-1B modernization rule, adjustment of status proposal and seasonal/temporary worker regulations targeted for publication by the end of 2024. The next step toward Schedule A reform will occur this August.

H-1B modernization: The Department of Homeland Security proposed to amend regulations governing H-1B specialty occupations and certain F-1 students. DHS accepted comments on its wide-ranging proposed rule until Dec. 22, 2023 and finalized and implemented H-1B registration selection provisions in April 2024. The agency says it “continues to consider the suggestions made in public comments received as they relate to the other proposed provisions discussed in the Oct. 23, 2023 NPRM, and intends to finalize the remaining provisions in one or more actions.”
Lawful permanent residence (adjustment of status proposal): To reduce processing times, improve agency partnerships and promote efficiencies in visa availability, DHS plans to amend regulations governing adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence in the U.S. including permitting concurrent filing of a visa petition and the application for AOS for the employment-based fourth preference category. The target date for publishing the proposal is now August 2024. After publication, there will be a public comment period.
Schedule A: The Department of Labor is considering updating Schedule A and opened a Request for Information period on Dec. 21, 2023 that was extended through May 13, 2024. During this period, the public provided input on whether Schedule A served as an effective tool for addressing current labor shortages, and how DOL can create a timely, coherent, and transparent methodology for identifying science, technology, engineering and mathematics and other occupations that are experiencing labor shortages while ensuring the employment of foreign nationals does not displace U.S. workers or adversely affect their wages and working conditions. According to the regulatory agenda, DOL aims to complete analysis of the comments in August 2024.
H-2 modernization: DHS published a proposal for modernizing H-2 programs on Sept. 20, 2023 intended to reduce inefficiencies, enhance pay protections and address “aspects of the program that may unintentionally result in exploitation or other abuse of persons seeking to come to this country as H-2A and H-2B workers.” Comments were accepted through November 2023 and final action is targeted for November 2024.
Nonimmigrant workers: DHS plans to propose amendments to regulations governing certain nonimmigrant workers including updating the employment authorization rules regarding dependent spouses of certain nonimmigrants; increasing flexibilities for certain nonimmigrant workers and modernizing policies and procedures for employment authorization documents. The targeted publication date is now January 2025.
Immigrant worker reforms: DHS also plans to propose to amend regulations governing employment-based immigrant petitions in the first, second and third preference classifications. According to the regulatory agenda, proposed rule amendments would include updating and modernizing provisions governing extraordinary ability and outstanding professors and researchers; clarifying evidentiary requirements for first preference classifications, second preference national interest waiver classifications and physicians of national and international renown; ensuring the integrity of the I-140 program and correcting errors and omissions. Publication of the proposed rule is now targeted for June 2025.

BAL Analysis: While these regulations would have a significant impact on immigration programs, they are at different stages in the rulemaking process, and policies are still being formulated. Proposed regulations are subject to a public notice-and-comment period, during which members of the public may submit feedback. BAL continues to monitor progress on the regulatory agenda and will provide clients with updates on individual regulations as they move through the rulemaking process.

Category: Administrative & Regulatory

Triggers That Require Reporting Companies to File Updated Beneficial Ownership Interest Reports

Like this: