On February 13th 2025, Supreme People’s Court of The People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) issued the Reply on Validity of Agreements by Hong Kong and Macao-Invested Enterprises Registered in Mainland Cities of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area to Choose Hong Kong or Macao Law as the Governing Law or to Designate Hong Kong or
On December 3, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Republic of Hungary v. Simon. The case involves Hungary’s theft of valuable items from Jewish families during the Holocaust. The plaintiffs sued the Republic of Hungary and its national railway in the United States, arguing that a federal court in Washington, D.C. could
On Wednesday, December 11th, Seyfarth attorneys Steve Kmieciak and Sara Beiro Farabow will present the third installment of a series of micro-webinars focused on key legal perspectives and considerations for those operating in the hospitality industry. This session will address key considerations for adapting construction forms for international hospitality renovations, including whether to
We’re excited to announce that Sara Beiro Farabow, Chair of Seyfarth Shaw’s International Dispute Resolution Group (IDRG), and Seyfarth partner Will Prickett, an IDRG member and head of International Litigation, will be guest lecturers at the Polytechnic University of Milan on October 22nd. Their lecture will cover critical topics in international dispute resolution and contracts.
The following post was originally published to Seyfarth’s Gadgets, Gigabytes & Goodwill blog.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s end-of-term decision in Abitron v. Hetronic seems to have created more questions than answers about U.S. brand owners’ ability to leverage the federal Lanham Act in global trademark disputes. In the few weeks since the Court issued its opinion, parties and courts alike are already struggling with exactly how to apply it.
The Hetronic case originated in the Tenth Circuit. Oklahoma-based Hetronic, a manufacturer of remote controls for construction equipment, sued its former EU distributor for infringing trademarks and trade dress associated with authentic Hetronic products. A jury awarded Hetronic more than $115 million in damages, $96 million of which related to Lanham Act violations. The district court then granted Hetronic a worldwide injunction against defendant Abitron. Abitron appealed, arguing that the award was improper because 97 percent of the sales at issue occurred abroad. The Tenth Circuit tailored the injunction to apply only to markets where Hetronic was actually selling products, but upheld the damage award, reasoning that even activity occurring abroad had a “substantial effect” on U.S. commerce.Continue Reading Courts and Brand Owners Struggling With SCOTUS Decision Limiting Ability to Police Against Foreign Trademark Infringement
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 23, 2023, majority decision in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, Case No. 22-105 requires a stay of district court litigation if a party loses a motion to compel arbitration and pursues the right of interlocutory appeal granted by 9 U.S.C. § 16(a). Section 16(a) is the provision of the Federal Arbitration
Seyfarth Shaw Hong Kong Office
Suite 3701 & 3708-3710, 37/F
Edinburgh Tower, The Landmark
15 Queen’s Road Central
Central, Hong Kong
Wednesday, May 17, 2023
9:00am to 10:00am, with registration open and breakfast served from 8:30am
Language: English
Who should attend: HR Directors, Employment Counsel, General Counsel and business owners with responsibility for workforces in
Seyfarth Hong Kong Office
Suite 3701 & 3708-3710, 37F
Edinburgh Tower, The Landmark
15 Queen’s Road Central
Central, Hong Kong
Seyfarth Shanghai Office
15th Floor, Tower 2
Jing An Kerry Centre
1539 Nanjing Road West
Shanghai, China 200040
IN-PERSON Options
May 10, 2023
2:45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. (GMT+8) Registration
3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
There is a little-known provision of the Lanham Act (the US Trademark Act) that packs a potentially big punch. 15 USC § 1051(e) provides that if a non-U.S. entity registers for a trademark in the United States without designating a United States resident for service of “notices or process in proceedings affecting the mark” (a
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S., aka Halkbank v. United States.[1] This groundbreaking case represents the first known attempt by the United States (or likely any state in modern history) to indict and criminally-prosecute the agency or instrumentality of a foreign state. The Supreme Court held that