Wednesday, 10 April 2024
5:45 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. Registration
6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. Panel Program
7:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Networking and Apertivo
Magna Pars L’ Hotel À Parfum
via Forcella, 6
20144 Milano, Italy
Meeting room: Ambrosia Hall
In an era of rapid change and increasingly complex global workplace
The United States Supreme Court recently granted Certiorari in a closely watched case that could have significant consequences for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and certain other federal administrative agencies.
In SEC v. Jarkesy, the Supreme Court will determine the constitutionality of the SEC’s broad discretion in deciding which cases will be
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
In a previous blog, we summarized the recent case of Groff v. Dejoy, where the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously clarified the undue hardship standard under Title VII, a federal law in the United States that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
The decision is in line with
This post was originally published to Seyfarth’s Trading Secrets blog.
The UK government has announced that it will bring in legislation to restrict the post-employment non-compete restraints to three months. This is a significant proposal as currently non-compete restrictions in the UK are generally capable of being enforced for a period up to 12
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
Under China’s data protection regulatory framework, data processors are required to pass a security assessment conducted by the cybersecurity regulator before transferring certain categories or volumes of data out of China. This January, six months after the Cyberspace Administration of China (“CAC”) released the Measures on Security Assessment of Outbound Data Transfers (“