BY BRAD HADFIELDJoe Shoen, CEO of U-Haul, has had enough.As MSM reported on November 21st, U-Haul filed a complaint in the US District Court of Arizona against Public Storage. The action is designed to protect U-Haul’s right to continue its use of the color orange and the word ‘orange’ when promoting and marketing its storage business. This comes after Public Storage demanded U-Haul discontinue use of the color, whether on doors, signage or in marketing and promotional materials, despite the fact that it has been using it since 1945.Shoen sat down with MSM to discuss the complaint and what it could mean not just for U-Haul, but every owner and operator in the self-storage industry.“[Public Storage] started this about four years ago,” says Shoen. “We tried to talk with them numerous times, but effectively got the brush off. It got to the point where we had no choice but to file a complaint and hope a federal district judge will make a common sense decision.”The complaint states that U-Haul believes Public Storage has “engaged in a multi-faceted and corrupt campaign to wrongfully appropriate rights in the use of the color and word ‘orange’ in connection with self-storage services and to assert such rights against U-Haul, its sister companies, its dealers, and licensees.”“Orange is a standard color in self-storage,” explains Shoen. “Claiming exclusive rights to the color, whether on doors, buildings, or marketing materials is egregious, and if they can get a registration they’ll enforce it and everyone, not just U-Haul, is going to have to change. A small operator with 500 unit doors? You’re going to have to pay to replace or repaint them. That is going to be an expensive undertaking.”To support the notion that orange is a general self-storage color, and not a color only associated with Public Storage, Shoen says the company has turned over to the court evidence of at least 800 self-storage operators that use the color orange on their doors. “That’s just what we’ve gathered in a few weeks,” he adds. “I believe there are many, many more.” A quick search of stock photography also confirms the prevalence of the color orange within the industry; there are hundreds of stock photos showing orange doors and buildings – none of which are specific to Public Storage.

“U-Haul alone has 5,000 independent dealers who are also self-storage operators. These aren’t big operations; maybe one to three facilities. They aren’t in a position to fight this, so we have to settle this matter once and for all and get a judge to say, ‘Stop this, this color can be used by any self-storage facility across the board.’”

U-Haul’s complaint further states that Public Storage is so determined to monopolize the color and/or the term ‘orange’ that it has fabricated use of trademarks containing the word and knowingly filed fraudulent evidence of trademark use with the USPTO. As evidence, U-Haul has turned over examples of website pages in which Public Storage retroactively added slogans and marks centered around the word and color orange to existing pages, captured images of it, and then removed them. “It was only done to tell the judge they’d used it, but it was there for maybe four weeks,” states Shoen. “They’ve also clearly been manipulating Wikipedia and AI so that orange appears to be attributed only to public storage. It’s all so dishonest, and I don’t think it’s wise to fib to the judge.”

As a family company – Shoen’s children Stuart, Sam, and Royal all work for U-Haul – Shoen feels they have more in common with smaller operators than one might think, which is another reason he’s standing up to Public Storage. “If they get what they want and take control of this color, this will affect everyone in the industry and they’ll begin to fall like dominoes. It’ll cause a serious disruption, and we can’t allow it to happen. So we’re fighting for the little guys too, because they can’t push back against this like we can.”

That said, Shoen says he’d still love to hear from them, and he addresses them directly: “Listen, we’re not asking for anything, and we’re certainly not going to ask for help with attorney’s fees; we’ve got that covered! We just think all of us should stick together as a group and say, ‘We all have a right to this color.’ This will show the court that we’re in this together, and that this has far-reaching effects outside of just U-Haul.”

Shoen encourages anyone concerned about the case, and their own use of the color orange, to reach out to him directly and has provided his email address and cell phone number. joe@uhaul.com

602-390-6525

–

MSM previously reached out to Public Storage for comment but did not receive a response.

View our original story on this complaint:

U-Haul Files Complaint Against Public Storage Over Orange Branding

By Salvatore J. Giorgianni

Concerns about high drug prices can take a significant toll on Americans every day. A new West Health-Gallup study recently found that a mere 55% of Americans believe they can afford their healthcare and prescription drugs, down six points in just one year. Thankfully, Congress has a rare bi-partisan opportunity in this upcoming lame duck session to address one of the primary drivers of this crisis: pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs.

These powerful middlemen control prescription drug access for millions of Americans, and their business model is nefarious — but currently legal. PBMs, which represent for-profit insurance companies, extract (or dictate) substantial rebates and discounts off the nominal “list” price of medicines and also decide which medicines should be covered on different insurance plans.
These for-profit PBMs pocket the lion’s share of these discounts for themselves and send the rest to insurers — while patients are stuck paying copays and coinsurance based on the much higher list prices.

The consequences are heartbreaking. The West Health-Gallup study reports that “72.2 million Americans avoided necessary medical care in the past three months due to cost.” This only exacerbates other barriers to care for vulnerable populations. Many patients who have walked away from the pharmacy counter empty-handed did so because of unaffordable copay or coinsurance payments.

One of the most important remedies to this dangerous situation is to reform how PBMs work and require them to be accountable and to return discounts and rebate savings to patients. Two bipartisan bills currently before Congress offer real solutions. The first, the Modernizing and Ensuring PBM Accountability Act, would “delink” PBM compensation from drug prices. Currently, PBMs earn fees calculated as a percentage of a drug’s list price. PBMs would have to charge flat fees based on actual services provided, eliminating their incentive to favor higher-priced medications.

The second bill would require patient cost-sharing to be based on a drug’s actual net price — what insurers pay after rebates and discounts — rather than its list price. This seemingly simple change could dramatically reduce out-of-pocket costs for patients with conditions like asthma, heart disease, and those requiring blood thinners.

These PBM practices also have an impact on overall health and wellness. When patients can’t afford medications, manageable chronic conditions can escalate into medical emergencies. This creates a cascade of costly hospitalizations and complications that strain our entire healthcare system. They also adversely impact access to care.  Pharmacies, particularly independent community pharmacies that proudly serve vulnerable populations are being squeezed to the breaking point by PBM practices.  This is particularly appalling when you consider that one of the largest chain pharmacy corporations also owns one of the largest PBM operations.

Congress needs to seize the moment and act now to address PBM overreach and abuses. Strong majorities across party lines are demanding change. These reforms wouldn’t solve every problem, but they would represent a significant step toward a more transparent, patient-centered system.

Salvatore J. Giorgianni, PharmD, CMHE is the Vice-President and Cofounder of Healthy Men Inc. and Chair-Emeritus and Cofounder of the American Public Health Association Men’s Health Caucus. This piece originally ran in Medical Economics.

By Andrei Iancu

America’s first patent statutes date to the 18th century, when steam engines and cotton gins were cutting-edge. The law that defines what inventions are patentable was written in 1793, and its operative language has not been substantively revised since. It’s little wonder, then, that in recent years, confusion has reigned over what can and cannot be patented.   

The Supreme Court has stepped in to try and craft workable rules, but has only confused matters further. Only Congress can adequately clarify our patent laws, and the time to do so is now — before we lose any more of our global competitive edge.

In the first of four key cases, 2010’s Bilski v. Kappos, the court held that a finance firm’s method for reducing risk in commodities trading was ineligible for a patent. But the court didn’t clarify which, if any, new business processes are eligible. 

Next, in Mayo v. Prometheus, SCOTUS determined that medical diagnostic tests aren’t eligible for patents on the supposed grounds that mere measurement and observation of physical qualities isn’t enough. The decision gutted investment in testing research, ceding ground to inventors and developers in countries like China and South Korea, where such patent protections apply to medical devices created for the purpose of diagnosis. 

Then came Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, which ruled ineligible for patents all human genetic sequences that occur naturally — including those isolated outside the body in order to develop new genetic therapies. 

Finally, in 2014, the court ruled in Alice Corp v. CLS Bank International that novel banking methods, because they are “abstract ideas,” were ineligible for patents. The case, alongside Bilski, was widely interpreted to restrict patent eligibility for software applications. 

In all these cases, the Supreme Court muddied the waters by introducing elements of the U.S. Code governing the tests for whether an invention deserves a patent — including questions of novelty, obviousness and specificity — into the more basic question spelled out in Section 101 of the code about inventions eligible for patent consideration at all.   

For example, the court has held that, because anyone can make an observation, inventions based on observations aren’t patentable. Yet invention is always about making observations.

It will take a change in the law to set matters right. That’s the gap the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) fills. 

PERA removes ambiguity and uncertainty by stating that an invention is eligible for patent consideration unless it falls into certain specifically restricted categories.

PERA rules out patents on genes, but it doesn’t rule out patent eligibility for innovative systems to isolate and purify them outside the body, which are essential to developing genetic therapies. Likewise, PERA specifies that biomarkers — knowledge that certain genetic sequences indicate risk of disease — are ineligible for patents. But the specific use of innovative biomarkers in tests is eligible.

Note that eligibility is just the threshold. To earn patent protection, an invention must meet additional, well-established criteria of novelty, non-obviousness and complete description. But whole categories of inventions will no longer be deemed ineligible based on standards developed for the additional tests.

By reasserting congressional authority over patent eligibility rules, PERA would provide the certainty needed to restart investment and restore U.S. leadership across multiple spheres, from biomedicine to computer science.

Andrei Iancu served as the undersecretary of Commerce for intellectual property and director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from 2018 to 2021. He is co-founder and co-chairman of the Council for Innovation Promotion. This piece originally ran in The Hill.

By Dr. Brian Hainline

Everyone knows that exercise is healthy, and that playing sports is one of the best — and most enjoyable — ways to maintain optimal weight, boost mental wellbeing, and improve strength, balance, and flexibility.

But what is the “healthiest” sport? Does it really matter which activity folks pick, so long as they’re exercising?

Contrary to conventional wisdom, it does matter. A recent study tracked more than 8,000 people over a quarter century to determine which activities offered the greatest health benefits. And there was a clear standout: tennis.

Tennis added 9.7 years to a typical player’s life, compared to that of a sedentary person. The only sport that came close to this was badminton, which added 6.2 years of life.

As a physician who previously served as the chief medical officer of the NCAA, US Open, and chaired two high-level forums for the International Olympic Committee, I’ve noticed for decades that tennis offers people who want to get and stay healthy the most “bang-for-their-buck” when it comes to time, effort, and actual bucks.

Tennis is ideally orchestrated to keep your heart healthy. The high-intensity intervals of activity elevate your heart rate, enhance blood flow, and strengthen cardiovascular health. Just three hours on the court each week could reduce the risk of death from cardiovascular disease by 56%, and the risk of death from all causes by 47%. 

Aerobic exercise, by comparison, reduced all-cause mortality by just 27%. Remarkably, running and soccer had no effect on people’s risk of death.

Playing tennis is associated with greater bone mineral density in the femurs, hips, and spine. Tennis players have “significantly greater” upper body musculoskeletal function than their inactive counterparts.

Even those new to the sport could reap its benefits. As one review notes, “numerous studies have identified better bone health not only in tennis players with lifelong tennis participation histories, but also in those who take on the sport in mid-adulthood.”

Tennis also improves mobility, flexibility, and balance. Returning a serve, or positioning yourself for a precision volley, engages the whole body. Each burst of movement — stretching, accelerating, or pivoting — leads to improved coordination.

The confidence that comes from engaging skillfully with a physical task — sometimes referred to as physical literacy — is another reason to take up the game. 80% of players reported improvements in self-esteem after regular trips to the court.

Tennis is also one of the few lifelong sports that can be played cheaply and conveniently. Visit any tennis court — there are roughly 250,000 of them nationwide — and it’s common to see folks playing into their 70s and 80s.

Any exercise is better than no exercise. But if folks are looking to maximize their health gains, now and for decades to come, I always tell them to go pick up a racquet and head to their local tennis court.

Brian Hainline, MD is Chair of the Board and President of the United States Tennis Association and recently transitioned from the NCAA as their Chief Medical Officer. He co-chaired the International Olympic Committee Consensus Meetings on both Pain Management in Elite Athletes and Mental Health in Elite Athletes. Brian is a Clinical Professor of Neurology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. This piece originally ran in the Duluth News Tribune.

Gambling has always been a thrilling pastime for many, and with the advent of online platforms like Youwin, the accessibility and variety of games have significantly increased. Whether you’re a seasoned bettor or new to the scene, understanding the scope and statistics of online gambling can enhance your gaming experience. Here are some key facts and figures to get you started on where excitement meets opportunity.

Global Reach and Revenue

The whole global market of online gambling is projected to have a value of $92.9 billion by 2023. In 2021, the largest share of the online gambling market is accounted for by Europe at 52%.

Popular Games and Their Spectators

Online slots are engaging 48% of all activity in online gambling. Poker takes about 6.8% of all gamblers domestically.

Demographics of Online Gamblers

Online gamblers make up 11% of all internet users worldwide. The average age of online gamblers is 34 years old.

Economic Impact

Online gambling supports more than 6.2 million jobs across the world. In 2020, online sports wagering activity alone won $20 billion in worldwide revenue.

Regulatory Landscape

In some forms, more than 80 countries have legalized online gambling. The best reviewed regulated markets for Online gambling include the UK, Malta, and Gibraltar.