FTC Issues Long-Awaited Revised "Green Guides"
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.01.12
Today the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its latest revisions to the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, 16 CFR Part 260, commonly referred to as the "Green Guides." These long-awaited changes to the Green Guides follow proposed revisions published in October 2010 and trail fourteen years after the FTC's last revision of the Green Guides in 1998. Information about the changes, including the FTC's press release, the Federal Register Notice, and a summary of the proposed changes, is available on the FTC's website here.
The Revised Green Guides differ from the 2010 proposed revisions in some respects, accounting for the many comments the FTC received about those proposed revisions. The Revised Green Guides amend the FTC's environmental marketing claims guidance last published in 1998 including specific new guidance regarding general environmental benefit claims; certificates and seals of approval; the use of "free of" and non-toxic labels; and compostable, degradable, recyclable, and refillable claims. The guides also address claims made about carbon offsets, renewable energy, renewable materials, and source reduction.
For more information about the Revised Green Guides, as well as a forthcoming substantive analysis of the revisions, please contact Crowell & Moring.
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.27.25
Federal Circuit Resolves Circuit Split on Scope of IPR Estoppel
As part of the 2012 America Invents Act, statutory estoppel was included to balance the interests of patent owners and patent challengers following an inter partes review (“IPR”). Estoppel prevents an IPR petitioner from later asserting in court that a claim “is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during the IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). As applied, estoppel prevents petitioners from later relying in district court or in ITC proceedings on most patents or printed publications – the limited bases upon which petitioner can rely in an IPR. But a question remained, and contradictory district court decisions arose, as to whether petitioners would be estopped from relying on a prior art commercial product (known as “device art,” which could not itself have been raised in the IPR) even if a printed publication describing the product (i.e. a patent or technical manual) was available and presumably could have been raised.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 05.27.25
U.S. Departments of State and Treasury Issue Immediate Sanctions Relief for Syria
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.23.25
Executive Order Seeks Most-Favored-Nation Drug Pricing and HHS Announces Price Targets
Client Alert | 4 min read | 05.22.25
Opportunities for Procurement on the Horizon as UK Concludes Free Trade Agreement With India
