Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Friday, March 5, 2021
Governor J.B. Pritzker extended the majority of his executive orders in response to COVID-19 through March 6, 2021. To the great relief of many physicians and other health care providers, the extension included Executive Order 2020-09 on telehealth. But, what does this mean for telehealth after the pandemic? This remains a question on everyone s minds as health care providers wait to see how long these extensions will last.
Prior to the pandemic, providing telehealth services in Illinois was fairly onerous, with many stringent requirements affecting both the provider and the patient. The original Executive Order 2020-09 was issued on March 19, 2020 and described that all health insurers regulated by the Department of Insurance must cover telehealth services for in-network providers and reimburse providers at the same rate as in-person visits. These insurers were prohibited from imposing any cost-sharing for in-network providers. This was a tremendous
On March 2, 2021, Governor Northam made Virginia the second state in the U.S. to enact a comprehensive privacy law, Virginia's Consumer Data Protection Act, regulating data related to Virginia residents in their individual or household capacity.
Thursday, March 4, 2021
The Fourth Circuit recently overturned a district court’s decision to apply an analogous state law statute of limitations to bar a claim for false advertising under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act. In doing so, the Court held that because § 43(a) claims are “equitable in nature,” laches is the applicable timeliness rule, rather than a state law’s statute of limitations.
Plaintiff Bayer owns a Mexican registration for the mark “Flanax” and sells naproxen pain relievers under that name in Mexico and various parts of Latin America. After Bayer registered the “Flanax” mark in Latin America, defendant Belmora began selling naproxen pain relievers under the same name in the United States. Following a 7-year battle before the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), Bayer successfully blocked Belmora’s registration of the trademark FLANAX in the United States.
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.