Tag: products

EPA Announces Strengthening the Safer Choice and Design for the Environment Standard for Commercial and Household Cleaning Products

On August 8, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that it made updates to strengthen the Safer Choice and Design for the Environment (DfE) Standard, which identifies the requirements that products and their ingredients must meet to earn EPA’s Safer Choice label or DfE logo. EPA states these updates strengthen the criteria that products must meet to qualify for the voluntary Safer Choice label, supporting the use of safer chemicals in the marketplace.

According to EPA, the Safer Choice program was implemented so consumers and purchasers for facilities like schools and office buildings could find cleaners, detergents, and other products made with safer chemical ingredients. It encourages use of chemicals that meet EPA’s stringent criteria for human health and the environment and provides opportunities for companies to differentiate their products in the marketplace with the Safer Choice label.

Similarly, the DfE program assists consumers to find antimicrobial products that meet high standards for public health and the environment. It assists consumers to identify antimicrobial products like disinfectants that meet the health and safety standards of the normal pesticide registration process required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as well as meeting the Safer Choice and DfE Standard.

In addition to updated clarifying language, the final updated Standard includes:

  • A new certification program for cleaning service providers that use Safer Choice- and DfE-certified products. The Cleaning Service Certification logo is available for organizations and businesses that use cleaners, detergents, disinfectants, and related products as part of their primary operations. The logo distinguishes cleaning service providers who use Safer Choice-certified products for cleaning and DfE-certified products for disinfection either exclusively or to the maximum extent practicable.
  • Strengthened criteria that pet care products must meet to ensure they use only the safest possible ingredients for humans, pets, and the environment.
  • Updated safer packaging criteria, ensuring primary packaging does not include any unintentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) or other chemicals of concern.
  • Strengthened sustainable packaging requirements for all Safer Choice-certified products to use post-consumer recycled content and be recyclable or reusable.
  • Updated criteria for wipe products to ensure certified wipes contain “Do Not Flush” language to help reduce damage to wastewater treatment systems.
  • New, optional energy efficiency or use reduction criteria to encourage companies to use less water, use renewable energy, and improve energy efficiency.

This update follows a November 2023 request for public comment on EPA’s proposed updates to the Standard. This is EPA’s fourth update of the Standard since its inception in 2009 and the first since 2015. EPA states it periodically updates the Standard to keep current with the state of scientific and technological innovation, increase transparency and reduce redundancy, and expand the scope of the program as appropriate.

The updated Standard is available here.

©2024 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
by: Heather F. Collins, Barbara A. Christianson of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

Europol: More Than Half of Counterfeits Originate in China

On March 7, 2022, the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) jointly released the Intellectual Property Crime Threat Assessment 2022. Per the Assessment, China (including Hong Kong) was the main source of counterfeits based on number of counterfeits and by value of the counterfeits seized at the EU external borders.  Almost 76% of the fake goods detained were for trademark infringement; design infringement was the second most reported at 23% while copyright was third with 15%.

China and Turkey remain the main countries of origins for counterfeit clothing, shoes, bags, watches, and jewelry seized at the EU’s border. These goods are mostly ordered online and discovered as part of postal shipments or on passengers entering the EU.

Similarly, China is the country of origin for most of the seized counterfeit electrical/electronic and computer equipment, mobile phones and accessories. With respect to mobile phones, the Assessment states,

…the visual appearance of the counterfeit devices is very convincing, closely mimicking the external characteristics of the original phones. However, typically some features and software characteristics are missing and the International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) is often fake.  The use of cheap and substandard electric components, which can be found in fake batteries, headphones or chargers, pose safety risks.

“China and Turkey were among the most frequently reported non-EU countries of origin for counterfeit food and drink seized at the EU’s external border.” Similarly, counterfeit perfumes and cosmetic products often originate from China and Turkey.

In addition to ready-to-use IPR-infringing goods, product components, such as aroma compounds, fixatives and solvents, are increasingly being seized. These components are used to create the final counterfeit products in the EU.

More worrisome, China and Turkey were the main origin of counterfeit pharmaceutical products.

Toys round out the top 10 counterfeits with China also being main point of origin.

The full Assessment is available here: IP_Crime_Threat_Assessment_2022_FullR_en.

Article By Aaron Wininger of Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

Legal Considerations for Ready-to-Drink Cocktails

The ready-to-drink cocktail or “RTD” category has exploded in recent years, and it’s occupied by more than merely craft distillers familiar with a carefully made cocktail. Brewers, distillers and even vintners have joined in, capitalizing on consumers’ desires for pre-made, no-fuss beverages. The most unexpected development to emerge with RTDs, however, is the legal complexity surrounding these products—something the industry is only beginning to understand.

Many of these legal issues stem from the fact that the legal regulatory landscape in most states has not caught up with the rapidly evolving alcohol industry. That leaves ready-to-drink cocktails, much like hard seltzers, as not having a specific class or type in certain states. Suppliers looking to enter the space have plentiful options when creating a new product, subject to what licenses the manufacturer holds and what those licenses allow them to produce.

Ready-to-drink cocktails can be spirits, malt, sugar, cider or wine-based. The base of the RTD product, nonetheless, is the key federal factor. It is also an important factor in most states when determining how the product will be treated from a legal perspective in the following areas:

  • Licensing needed to manufacture, distribute and sell the product;
  • Applicable franchise law (Do beer franchise laws apply to low-proof spirits?);
  • Available channels of distribution (Can you sell this product in grocery or convenience store?);
  • Excise tax rate charged to the manufacturer (Does state law have a lower excise tax rate for low ABV products?);
  • Labeling and advertising considerations (Is your product a modified traditional product?); and
  • Trade practice considerations/promotions (Do spirits laws apply?).

Industry members dabbling in a sphere that is relatively new to the market, state regulators and legislatures should be mindful of the patchwork of emerging regulations. Like hard seltzer, ready-to-drink cocktails are not a clearly defined category under existing alcohol law. Meanwhile, states are working quickly to legislate in this domain. New Jersey is considering a reduced alcoholic beverage tax rate on low-ABV liquors to align with the beer tax rate (NJ SB 701), Vermont is considering legislation to define “low alcohol spirits beverage” and treat it as a “vinous beverage” (VT HB 590) and the Washington State Senate has a bill pending that would establish a tax on low-proof beverages (WA SB 5049).

From franchise issues to excise tax, the issues discussed here are only a glimpse of the nuanced and complicated legal landscape that governs the distribution of RTDs and alcoholic beverages across all categories.

Article By Nichole D. Shustack and Isabelle R. Cunningham of McDermott Will & Emery

For more food and beverage legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 McDermott Will & Emery

How Can You (Safely) Shorten a Law Firm’s Name?

Fishman Marketing logo

Below are two logos – before and after the redesign, obviously.  Note, they’re exactly the same width. 

Which one stands out?  Which one are you more likely to notice and remember?

law firm branding logo

law firm branding logo

It’s obviously the right decision, there is no scenario where the top version is a “better” or more effective logo than the new one below it.  There are too many equal-sized names, and your brain can’t process all that visually similar information.  There’s no focal point, so your eyes don’t know where to go.  If you put it on tschotchkes like a hat or mug (see mock-ups below), or used it on business cards (also below) or a website, there’s a clear contrast.  If you looked away, you wouldn’t remember the firm’s name.

The bottom version with the larger name obviously helps the reader remember the firm’s name.

And that’s what a good logo is supposed to do.  It tells you what to remember, how to find them.  You know what to call them.  Which of course is the whole point – it’s a strong, interesting, unusual, and memorable name.  It’s what The Street has always chosen to call them – either “Lugenbuhl” or “The Lugenbuhl Firm.”  But changing a logo to reflect that reality is still extremely difficult.

law firm branding logo

Executing it requires teamwork.  Commitment to the firm.  Trust.  Strong leadership.

Here, Messrs. Wheaton, Peck, Rankin, and Hubbard are all still practicing.  They’re dynamic lawyers with great practices, leaders in their various industries (marine, bankruptcy, environmental, and energy). The latter Name Partners must have the professional security, integrity, and confidence to allow their names to be reduced in size compared to the first lawyer’s.  They all have to sublimate their egos for the sake of The Firm.  They must understand and accept that enlarging the first name over the others isn’t a comparative value judgment.

It doesn’t suggest that Mr. Lugenbuhl is “better” than they are. 

It’s not saying he’s more important, smarter, more valuable, or better looking.  It’s just that his name was first on the door and that having too many names of equal visual weight simply makes no strategic sense. It makes it harder to grasp visually and remember later, which hurts everyone’s business development.  The only possible explanation for keeping a design like this is the ego and insecurity of the latter-named lawyers.

law firm branding logo

And that’s not an insignificant thing, especially not in a professional-services firm. 

In a law firm, having your name on the door is the brass ring.  No one screws with a lawyer whose name is prominent on the letterhead.  Candidly, in their position, I wouldn’t want my name shrunk or eliminated from the logo either.  Regardless, it IS, of course, the right thing to do.

And that’s how we always pitch it – it’s not about Mr. Lugenbuhl.  ”Lugenbuhl” simply becomes a word, a noun, the corporate name.  It’s no longer about the person, it’s the word that represents the firm.  People don’t wonder who “Mr. McDonald” is when they buy a hamburger.

That’s certainly a challenge in first-generation law firms when one or more of the names on the door are still practicing.  This is particularly true when the firm has gradually added the firm’s top billers or rising stars to the end of the name.  The people in the front may no longer be as powerful or relevant. But it’s still the right thing to do.

Good for S. Rodger Wheaton, Stewart F. Peck, S. Frazer Rankin, and Ralph S. Hubbard, III.  They did the right thing for the firm.  I sincerely respect their sacrifice.

Here are two business card options with similar layouts.  The point is pretty obvious, don’t you think?

lawyer attorney business cards

lawyer attorney business cards

Article by:

Ross Fishman

Of:

Fishman Marketing, Inc.