uLogitech Would Like You To Call It “Logi” Instead (Sometimes)r

4 4 4 9

• 

  This is a thing that could be a product with the brand Logi on it.

  Fans of the company Logitech will save some time saying the brand’s name from now on: like that time in seventh grade when you made everyone call you solely by your first name, the computer peripherals maker would now like to be known as “Logi” — well, when it comes to certain products.

  This isn’t a sudden decision. Logitech says in a press release that its team has been tinkering with the company brand since 2013, puttering around “behind the scenes to reinvent the company, shaking things up culturally and through its product innovation.”

  The Logitech refresh comes with a new logo for the original brand as well as the new Logi side of things. The company says it’s going beyond “PC peripherals, to products that have a place in every aspect of your daily life… You’ll even see a new label for our latest product categories: Logi.”

  It’s unclear which products among Logitech/Logi’s lineup of keyboards and mouses/mice — if any — will be part of the new brand’s launch, but the company says it will be “crafting a portfolio of products that go beyond PC peripherals, to products that have a place in every aspect of your daily life.”

  “Logitech has undergone huge changes, so we’ve created an identity that is an expression of who we are today and who we will be moving forward,” added Alastair Curtis, chief design officer at Logitech in the press release. “A company transformation of this magnitude should come with an equally bold transformation of its brand.”

  The Logitech will linger on for now at least, it seems. Eventually customers should start to see the Logi label pop up on some new products.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uFederal Court Cancels Registration Of Redskins Trademarksr

4 4 4 9

• 

  It’s likely the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately have to weigh in before every snotty pre-adolescent entrepreneur can try to exploit the unregistered Redskins trademark.

  A year after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office deemed the term “Redskin” offensive, and therefore not eligible for a trademark, the Washington NFL team has been dealt another blow in its attempt to protect its brand. This morning, a federal court agreed with the USPTO and ordered the agency to cancel the team’s trademark.

  In his ruling [PDF], the U.S. District Court judge denied the team’s claim that canceling the Redskins trademarks would take away the organization’s First Amendment right to free expression, as the team can continue to use the Redskins name without any penalty; it just can’t trademark it.

  Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act prohibits registering trademarks if they “may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute,” but it does not prevent anyone from using that mark.

  “Cancelling the registration of a mark under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act does restrict the public debate on public issues as the mark owner is still able to use the mark in commerce,” writes the judge.

  The Redskins, whose ownership has remained resolute in retaining the name, can and will undoubtedly appeal today’s ruling, meaning the free-for-all on unlicensed Redskins merchandise will have to wait. It’s likely that this case will ultimately end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, though that could be a year or more from now.

  When the USPTO first canceled the trademark in 2014, the folks at South Park took the opportunity to poke fun at the team (while also promoting its new season) with this ad that ran in the D.C. area:

  The Washington Post was first to report on today’s ruling.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uJPMorgan Chase To Pay At Least $125M To Close Credit Card Debt Collection Probesr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (frankieleon)

  If you thought regulators were done with probing JPMorgan Chase’s credit card business after it was hit with a huge $389 million settlement over sketchy credit card practices,think again. Multiple news reports claim the bank is now agreeing to pay out at least another $125 million to close both state and federal investigations into its questionable credit card debt collection operations.

  Reuters was first to report that 47 states and the District of Columbia will end up splitting around $95 million of that total, with the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau receiving the rest. Around $50 million of the total settlement will be paid out to consumers.

  At issue is Chase’s alleged over-eagerness to collect on credit card debt. The bank is accused of using methods — like “robosigning,” wherein someone merely signs off on documents without properly reviewing them — that expedite the process but often result in incomplete or inaccurate collections actions.

  The Wall Street Journal reports that Chase ceased filing credit card debt lawsuits in 2011 and hasn’t restarted.

  You’ll note that the reported settlement doesn’t include all 50 states. Reuters says that neither California nor Mississippi are part of the deal, as both states have separate, pending litigation against Chase on similar claims.

  In 2013, the state of California sued Chase for allegedly operating a “debt collection mill” that improperly sued more than 100,000 of the state’s residents over their credit card bills.

  Mississippi filed a similar lawsuit against the bank later that year, alleging that a chaotic and high-pressure atmosphere at Chase led to widespread errors in debt collection actions.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uUber Testing Feature That Suggests Safe, Convenient Pickup Spots When Customers Request A Rider

4 4 4 9

• 

  (afagen)

  While car service customers have the power to set their pickup location as precisely as they want to — either by entering a specific street address or dropping a pin on the mobile app’s map — that doesn’t mean it’s always a safe or easy place to get picked up, depending on traffic, or a place with space for a driver to wait. After some prodding, Uber will now implement a feature that recommends safe and convenient pickup spots when riders request a car.

  TechCrunch’s Josh Constine wrote a post suggesting such a feature a few days ago, and it appears Uber was listening: The ride-hailing app is testing a “Suggested Pickup Points” that appear on a customer’s map as convenient or otherwise preferable spots for cars to arrive and wait for passengers. The hope here being that you won’t be tempted to dart across six lanes of traffic just to get to your waiting ride.

  The testing so far is going on in San Francisco, with the feature explaining that passengers can “save time at these locations,” which are highlighted on the map of a customer’s location. It shows spots near the customer’s pin that would be quicker for the driver to pick them up, and allows users to then drag that pin to the suggested spot.

  

  (via TechCrunch)

  However that doesn’t take into account where your destination is — the app could ostensibly choose a spot that will require a driver to turn around or loop around the block to get going in the right direction.

  Not all users are seeing the tests, which have appeared so far on iOS for uberPool, uberX, and Uber Black Car. We’ve reached out to Uber to ask for more information on the feature, and whether it’ll launch in other cities soon as well, and will update this post when we hear back.

  Uber Is Now Testing “Suggested Pickup Points” [TechCrunch]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uTaco Bell Officially Testing Delivery Service At 200 Restaurantsr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (blurrymystr)

  Back in May, Taco Bell confirmed it was starting small tests that delivered chalupas, Doritos Locos Tacos and other grub in areas full of hungry college students. Now, the fast food company is taking things a step farther, beginning a pilot delivery option in certain areas of the country.

  USA Today reports that starting today about 200 Taco Bell locations in Dallas, Los Angeles, Orange County, CA, and the San Francisco Bay area will offer customers a delivery option courtesy of a partnership with delivery service DoorDash.

  To use the service, customers simply select their order through the DoorDash mobile app or website. The company then puts in the order at Taco Bell, picks it up and delivers it.

  Customers using the DoorDash mobile app have the option to be notified when the driver is nearing their home or office — you know, so you can get the fine China ready.

  The company says there isn’t a minimum order required, but that a flat fee of $3.99 is added to all orders.

  If you’re just dying for a burrito or a Gordita right this minute, you still might be better off just driving to the closest restaurant.

  That’s because Tressie Lieberman, vice president of innovation and on demand at Taco Bell, tells USA Today initial tests of the service found orders took about 38 minutes between ordering and delivery.

  “We’ve been talking about delivery for a while, because it’s the No. 1 most requested thing,” Lieberman said.

  The company didn’t address whether or not its initial tests tackled what many saw as its biggest delivery challenge when testing near colleges: ensuring that the food doesn’t become soggy or lose flavor on its trek from the store to customers’ homes.

  Taco Bell begins testing delivery service at 200 stores [USA Today]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uTime Warner Cable Must Pay Nearly $230,000 For 153 Robocalls To The Wrong Personr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Enokson)

  We can all agree that automated robocalls are an annoying interruption. But you know what’s worse? Receiving those automated calls meant for someone else, telling the company to place you on the Do Not Call list and then continuing to receive a total of 153 prerecorded messages.

  That just so happened to be the case for a Texas woman who sued Time Warner Cable for incessant robocalls last year. Now, a federal judge has ruled that the cable company must pay her $1,500 per annoying call (totaling $229,500) for violating consumer protection laws, Reuters reports.

  U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled on Tuesday that each call TWC placed to the Texas woman between July 2013 and August 2014 constituted a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 – which aims to curb robocall and telemarketing abuses.

  According to the woman’s lawsuit, in the summer of 2013 she began receiving calls and harassing messages intended for someone else who had opened an account with New York-based TWC using a phone number the woman now held.

  After receiving several calls to her cell phone, the woman explained to a representative for the company that she was not the intended recipient and would like to be added to the company’s Do Not Call list, Reuters reports.

  Still, the calls – made through an interactive voice response (IVR) system for customers who were late paying bills – persisted. In March 2014, the woman took the step to sue the company, but the calls continued.

  TWC contended that it wasn’t liable under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act because it believed it was contacting someone else who had previously consented to the calls.

  However, Hellerstein noted in his ruling that a “responsible business” would have tried to address the problem.

  “A responsible business in TWC’s position might have dispatched a live agent to reach out to [the actual customer] after the IVR failed to reach him the first several times,” Hellerstein wrote in his ruling. “The responsible company will reduce its exposure dramatically by taking proactive steps to mitigate damages, while its competitor, who unthinkingly robo-dials the same person hundreds of times over many months without pausing to wonder why it cannot reach him, cannot complain about much higher liability.’

  “Defendant harassed plaintiff with robo-calls until she had to resort to a lawsuit to make the calls stop, and even then TWC could not be bothered to update the information in its IVR system,” the decision continued.

  Additionally, Hellerstein determined that the company’s final 74 calls that came after the lawsuit was filed were “particularly egregious violations of the TCPA and indicate that TWC simply did not take this lawsuit seriously.”

  A lawyer for the Texas woman says she is happy with the case’s outcome.

  A rep for TWC tells Reuters that the company is reviewing the decision.

  Time Warner Cable owes $229,500 to woman it would not stop calling [Reuters]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uNo Charges For Fired TSA Screeners Accused Of Conspiring To Grope Attractive Male Passengersr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (zieak)

  You might recall the tale of two Transportation Security Administration screeners who were accused of conspiring to tweak the system so they could give very thorough patdowns to the good-looking male travelers who passed through their post at the Denver Airport. But months after the workers were fired amidst allegations of a groping scheme, prosecutors have declined to file charges.

  Citing a lack of evidence, Denver prosecutors say there won’t be any charges against the former TSA workers accused of fondling male passengers, reports the Denver Post.

  “We were either unable to corroborate the victims’ claims with any additional facts or evidence or prove specific incidents could have been committed,” a spokeswoman for the city’s district attorney’s office said.

  Prosecutors said some allegations were also outside the statute of limitations.

  The spokeswoman said city police investigated the allegations and presented the results to the district attorney’s office over the last few months.

  When the two security screeners were fired in April, authorities alleged that the man and woman in question had been working together to make sure the system alarmed on good-looking men, who would then receive unprofessional patdowns in the genital region.

  After the accusations surfaced amid news of their termination, other passengers of both sexes came forward to claim they had also been touched inappropriately, the spokeswoman for the city district attorney’s office said.

  But some reports were ruled out because they happened after the two workers were fired. Other TSA workers were implicated in those complaints, but no charges have been filed.

  Denver prosecutors decline to file charges in airport TSA fondling allegations [Denver Post]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist