When we speak with clients about fundraising and identifying investors, standard advice usually includes avoiding general advertising and general solicitation regarding the funding round. While that may not be necessary in every case, avoiding public references to fundraising leaves companies with many more options for securities exemptions than they would otherwise have. (For an overview on securities exemptions and why an exemption is required for a private company to legally fundraise, check out this post, and for a further explanation as to what might constitute general advertising or solicitation, take a look at this one.)

Recently, the Supreme Court provided some clarity and guidance to trademark protection for generic terms registered as a domain and used as a trademark. In Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V., No. 19-46 (U.S. Jun. 30, 2020), the Court held that the mark “Booking.com” is not generic and is capable of trademark registration, even though the term “booking” is generic for a class of goods and services related to online hotel registrations. Essentially, the Patent and Trademark Office was arguing for a bright line rule that the addition of a generic Internet-domain-name suffix to an already generic term, for a related category of goods, is also generic; i.e. one cannot trademark the term “generic.com” for a generic description of a category of goods.

In continuation of our recent commentary on the COVID-19 pandemic, we're examining the latest litigation risks for employers in today's blog post. Because of COVID-19, employers of all sizes have been forced to make difficult decisions regarding employment. These decisions have led to furloughs, increased sick leave, productivity concerns, pay cuts, and termination of employees, all of which ultimately raise litigation concerns.

The boundary between termination and retention is more blurred than ever before. And this lack of distinction naturally leads to contract claims. Additionally, termination can raise non-compete issues if an employee is subject to a non-compete covenant, as well as wrongful termination issues.

Whether your company or organization was deemed essential or not – we all want to be careful around co-workers and colleagues – as well as clients and customers – from now on. A multitude of articles have been published and posts have been posted on all the considerations to account for as businesses and organizations re-open their doors and bring back furloughed or quarantined employees. The list below is a compilation of the resources we believe will provide you with the most helpful information as you navigate returning your office, plant, school, or facility.

We will keep updating this chart with recent changes and additions that may impact your place of work and employees.

On Monday of this week, a divided U.S. Supreme Court decided a landmark employment law case.  In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court found that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment, includes sexual orientation and gender identity.  Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees in 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.  Title VII prohibits discriminating against an individual with respect to employment decisions, compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.