Trump Administration: TPS for Afghanistan Will Terminate July 12, 2025
On May 12, 2025, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem announced that she will not renew Afghanistan’s Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation, meaning that the designation, including work authorization documents, will expire July 12, 2025.
Secretary Noem said, “Afghanistan has had an improved security situation, and its stabilizing economy no longer prevent them from returning to their home country. Additionally, the termination furthers the national interest as DHS records indicate that there are recipients who have been under investigation for fraud and threatening our public safety and national security. Reviewing TPS designations is a key part of restoring integrity in our immigration system.”
Prior to publication of the May 13 DHS notice in the Federal Register (which provides a July 14, 2025 termination date), Citizens Assisting and Sheltering the Abused (CASA) de Maryland, an immigrant advocacy group, filed suit on May 7, 2025 in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to prevent termination of Afghanistan TPS and Cameroon TPS in anticipation of a Federal Register notice being published terminating TPS for both countries.
In its complaint, CASA states, “A TPS designation cannot be terminated in this manner.… Instead, Congress established a strict process for terminating TPS designations, one that required [DHS] Secretary [Kristi] Noem to publish notice of her decision in the Federal Register at least 60 days before the current designation period ends.… The statute further prescribes what happens when the Secretary fails to follow that process: the TPS designation is automatically extended for at least another six months.”
The group also said the decision was made in part based on “racial animus,” pointing to plans to lift protections for immigrants from non-white nations, while opening the refugee program to Afrikaners in South Africa.
Similar legal challenges were brought against Secretary Noem’s efforts to terminate TPS for Haiti and Venezuela. (See New Lawsuit Challenges Trump Administration’s Termination of TPS for Haiti and Venezuela and Judge Blocks DHS Secretary Noem’s Termination of Venezuelan TPS.)
Understanding the Scope of “Artificial Intelligence (AI) System” Definition: Key Insights From The European Commission’s Guidelines
With the entry into force of the AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) in August 2024, a pioneering framework of AI was established.
On February 2, 2025, the first provisions of the AI Act became applicable, including the AI system definition, AI literacy and a limited number of prohibited AI practices. In line with article 96 of the AI Act, the European Commission released detailed guidelines on the application of the definition of an AI system on February 6, 2025.
These non-binding guidelines are of high practical relevance, as they seek to bring legal clarity to one of the most fundamental aspects of the act – what qualifies as an “AI system” under EU law. Their publication offers critical guidance for developers, providers, deployers and regulatory authorities aiming to understand the scope of the AI Act and assess whether specific systems fall within it.
“AI System” Definition Elements
Article 3(1) of the AI Act defines an AI system as a machine-based system designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy, that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment and that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers from the input it receives how to generate output, such as predictions, content, recommendations or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments.
The European Commission emphasizes that this definition is based on a lifecycle perspective, covering both the building phase (pre-deployment) and the usage phase (post-deployment). Importantly, not all definitional elements must always be present—some may only appear at one stage, making the definition adaptable to a wide range of technologies, in line with the AI Act’s future-proof approach.
Machine-based System
The guidelines reaffirm that all AI systems must operate through machines – comprised of both hardware (e.g., processors, memory and interfaces) and software (e.g., code, algorithms and models) components. This includes not only traditional digital systems, but also advanced platforms such as quantum computing and biological computing, provided they possess computational capacity.
Autonomy
Another essential requirement is autonomy, described as a system´s capacity to function with some degree of independence from human control. This does not necessarily imply full automation, but may include systems capable of operating based on indirect human input or supervision. Systems that are designed to operate solely with full manual human involvement and intervention
Adaptiveness
An AI system may, but is not required to, exhibit adaptiveness – meaning it can modify its behavior post-deployment based on new data or experiences. Importantly, adaptiveness is optional and systems without learning capabilities can still qualify as AI if other criteria are met. However, this characteristic is crucial in differentiating dynamic AI systems from static software.
Systems Objectives
AI systems are designated to achieve specific objectives, which can be either explicit (clearly programmed) or implicit (derivate from training data or system behavior). These internal objectives are different from the intended purpose, which is externally defined by its provider and context of use.
Inferencing Capabilities
It is the capacity to infer how to generate output based on input data that defines an AI system. This distinguishes them from the traditional rule-based or deterministic software. According to the guidelines, “inferencing” encompasses both the use phase, where the outputs such as predictions, decisions or recommendations are generated, as well as the building phase, where models or algorithms are derived using AI techniques.
Output That Can Influence Physical or Virtual Environments
The output of an AI system (predictions, content, recommendations or decisions) must be capable of influencing physical or virtual environments. This captures the wide functionality of modern AI, from autonomous vehicles and language models to recommendation engines. Systems that only process or visualize data without influencing any outcome fall outside the definition.
Environmental Interaction
Finally, AI systems must be able to interact with their environment, either physical (e.g., robotic systems) or virtual (e.g., digital assistants). This element underscores the practical impact of AI systems and further distinguishes them from purely passive or isolated software.
Systems Excluded from the AI System Definition
In addition to the wide explanation of AI systems elements of definition, these guidelines provide clarity on what is not considered AI under AI Act, even if some systems show rudimentary inferencing traits:
Systems for improving mathematical optimization – Systems, such as certain machine learning tools, that are used purely to improve computational performance (e.g., to enhance simulation speeds or bandwidth allocation) fall outside the scope unless they involve intelligent decision-making.
Basic data processing tools – Systems that execute pre-defined instructions or calculations (e.g., spreadsheets, dashboards and databases) without learning, reasoning or modelling are not considered AI systems.
Classical heuristic systems – Rule-based problem-solving systems that do not evolve through data or experience, such as chess programs based solely on minimax algorithms, are also excluded.
Simple prediction engines – Tools using basic statistical methods (e.g., average-based predictors) for benchmarking or forecasting, without complex pattern recognition or inference, do not meet the definition’s threshold.
The European Commission concludes by highlighting the following aspects:
It must be noted that the definition of an AI system in the AI Act is broad and must be assessed based on how each system works in practice
There is not an exhaustive list of what is considered AI, each case depends on the system’s features
Not all AI systems are subject to regulatory obligations and oversight under the AI Act
Only those that present higher risks, such as those covered by the rules on prohibited or high-risk AI, will be under legal obligations
These guidelines play an important role in supporting the effective implementation of the AI Act. By clarifying what is meant by an AI system, they provide greater legal certainty and help all relevant stakeholders such as regulators, providers and users understand how the rules apply in practice. Their functional and flexible approach reflects the diversity of AI technologies and offers a practical basis for distinguishing AI systems from traditional software. As such, the guidelines contribute to a more consistent and reliable application of the regulation across the EU.
Beyond the Forest: Navigating the EU’s Deforestation Rules
On 15 April 2025, the European Commission (the “Commission”) released new simplification measures relating to the EU Deforestation Regulation (“EUDR”) with the promise of ensuring a “simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation”. This is part of the Commission’s broader agenda for economic competitiveness and to reduce reporting burdens on businesses.
We recap in this alert what the EUDR is, its journey so far and the latest simplification proposals.
What is the EUDR?
The EUDR formerly replaced the EU Timber Regulations on 29 June 2023, broadening the scope of commodities and obligations that would be placed on companies that operate within these markets. The EUDR now covers the regulation of commodities ranging from cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, soya, rubber and wood. The obligations also extend to products that are derived from these commodities, such as beef, chocolate, printed paper, furniture and other derivative products.
Which companies are in scope?
The EUDR applies to both EU and non-EU companies that import to, place on, make available or export within the EU market relating to the specific commodities described under the EUDR.
The current thresholds for companies to be in scope of this regulation include:
Larger companies – Those with 250 employees or more and/or an annual turnover of more than €50 million, and/or a balance sheet total of more than €25 million.
Smaller companies – Those with fewer than 50 employed and either a turnover or balance sheet of less than €10 million.
The expected deadline for compliance is currently 30 December 2025 for larger companies and 30 June 2026 for smaller companies.
What is the legal framework around EUDR?
The EUDR is a directly applicable Regulation that does not need to be transposed. The EUDR itself currently sets extensive due diligence requirements for companies to ensure compliance with the Regulation. Following feedback from regulators and stakeholders, the Commission published updated guidance annexed to the EUDR (detailed below) on 15 April 2025, in addition to a draft of the Delegated Act and Implementation Regulation to accompany EUDR. It is expected that these will be introduced by 30 June 2025. The purpose of this additional layer of regulation is to allow for consistent implementation of EUDR across all EU Member States and to address the specific needs of different stakeholders, including businesses and regulatory authorities with respect to the application of EUDR.
What are the key requirements for companies under EUDR?
In-scope companies are obligated to submit electronic due diligence statements to an EUDR Information System (a digital platform) which are then checked internally by a registry, Member States and regulatory authorities. Key information to be captured in the due diligence statements that are submitted range from confirmation of the deforestation-free status of their products to demonstrating compliance with the applicable legal frameworks in the country of origin. Additionally, they must conduct and document comprehensive risk assessments outlining the measures taken to mitigate deforestation risks within their supply chains, and ensure full transparency by tracing all products to their precise location of production.
How will companies evidence this with due diligence?
Companies will be expected to collect extensive data to demonstrate their compliance with EUDR. The relevant data will extend from geolocations, relevant commodity information, traceability of products to description of the suppliers and goods being produced.
A risk assessment will need to be conducted for each product to evaluate the likelihood of non-compliance with the EUDR. Based on the outcome, companies are expected to implement appropriate risk mitigation measures, which may include commissioning independent audits, collecting supplementary documentation, or collaborating with suppliers to address capacity gaps and ensure the necessary steps are taken to achieve compliance.
What are the potential sanctions for companies that are non-compliant?
Penalties will include fines of at least four percent of EU-derived turnover, temporary exclusion from public procurement and public funding, confiscation of noncompliant products and associated revenues. There could be one or a combination of these penalties. Where there are instances of repeated offences of non-compliance, this could result in prevention of marketing/exporting the relevant commodities and prohibition of the use of the EUDR simplification measures.
What are the new EUDR simplification measures?
The recent simplification measures from the European Commission provide further guidance on the application and compliance in respect of the scope of the EUDR. The Commission noted that these new guidelines address commercial concerns of application and adherence as well as administrative burdens which could see an estimated 30% reduction in the costs of complying with EUDR.
Under the new guidance, the simplification measures include:
large companies can reuse existing due diligence statements relating to goods previously placed on the EU market that are reimported;
authorised representatives can submit a due diligence statement on behalf of a group set of companies; and
companies will be allowed to submit due diligence statements annually (instead of for every shipment or batch placed on the EU market).
The simplifications in the guidance are accompanied by a draft Delegated Act, with the feedback window ending on 13 May 2025.
What should companies do now to align to the new EUDR standards?
As a pre-emptive measure, companies within these markets are recommended to consider a range of actions such as to map their supply chains to identify high-risk areas, implement traceability systems, prepare their due diligence documentation, and continue to monitor further updates from the Commission including country specific risk clarifications.
AI Governance Remains Critical Despite Political Pendulum Swings
Businesses increasingly rely on AI and generative AI for myriad uses. A new body of “AI law” is forming—and some legal requirements are now live. AI governance is a mandatory compliance function right now rather than next quarter or next year.
AI law is a patchwork across jurisdictions and can be hard to pin down. While some jurisdictions are enacting new laws, others are pulling back. As the political pendulum continues to swing, regulatory retrenchment is among the key themes coming into focus in 2025.
Some hardline AI regulatory regimes that dominated headlines in 2024 are being walked back. For example, at the U.S. federal level, the Trump administration has undone Biden-era AI executive orders, and federal agencies are recalibrating enforcement priorities accordingly. Consistent with broader deregulation impacts, observers expect that the FTC, SEC, and other agencies will focus primarily on clear cases of fraud, rather than pursuing broader or more innovative regulatory actions.
At the state level, the Colorado AI Act is under scrutiny for possible amendments, including through a new bill introduced in April 2025. Meanwhile, the governors of California and Virginia recently vetoed high-profile AI bills. And the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee proposed a 10-year moratorium on the enforcement of state AI laws in a recent draft budget reconciliation bill. Across the pond, the EU Commission recently withdrew the draft AI Liability Directive and is reportedly considering amendments to the EU AI Act to soften certain requirements.
But AI regulation is not dead. Newly enacted state laws in the U.S. (e.g., California, Illinois, New York, Utah) address algorithmic discrimination and automated decision-making; disclosure of AI use; impersonation, digital replicas, and deepfakes; watermarking of AI-generated content; data privacy and biometric data; and more. State attorneys general (e.g., California, New Jersey, Oregon) have reiterated that they will enforce existing laws against unlawful uses of AI. And, of course, the AI “copyright war”—testing the boundaries of copyright infringement and fair use for AI training and outputs—wages on in dozens of lawsuits in the U.S. and elsewhere.
The first requirements of the EU AI Act went live in February 2025. For example, companies using AI within the EU are now subject to the “AI literacy” requirement mandating “measures to ensure, to their best extent, a sufficient level of AI literacy” for employees or others who operate or use AI systems. The AI Act is extraterritorial. It applies to U.S. companies using AI systems within the EU or whose AI systems produce outputs intended for use in the EU. Employee training regarding the responsible use of AI is now mandatory for such companies.
Bottom line: while there may be a trend towards softening AI regulation in some areas, this is not a universal truth, and enterprise AI governance remains essential. Some new “AI law” requirements are now live, while others will be soon. In addition, regulators, state AGs, and plaintiffs will seek to apply existing laws to new technology. And, of course, there’s the potential self-inflicted wounds (like data leakage) and the reputational and public relations risks from an AI-powered snafu.
Luckily, there are some common threads in the AI regulatory thicket, and established guidance may ease the governance burden. Voluntary AI compliance frameworks like the NIST AI RMF and ISO/IEC 42001:2023 not only provide useful, detailed guidance for responsible AI governance, but they also form the basis of statutory safe harbors or affirmative defenses under laws like the Colorado AI Act. They provide a wise starting point for compliance programs, in addition to choosing AI model providers, models, and use cases wisely.
Luckily, there are some common threads in the AI regulatory thicket, and established guidance may ease the governance burden.
A Quest Against Middle-earth: Lord of the Fries Successfully Registers LORD OF THE Mark
The intellectual property rights owner of The Lord of the Rings franchise, Middle-earth Enterprises, LLC (Middle-earth Enterprises) has renewed its pursuit against Lord of the Fries IP Pty Ltd (Lord of the Fries), having recently appealed the Australian Trade Marks Office’s decision allowing the registration of the word mark LORD OF THE filed by Lord of the Fries. We discuss below the key issues in dispute in the trade mark opposition filed by Middle-earth Enterprises.1
Lord of the Fries, a well-known Australian vegan fast-food chain, applied to register the word mark LORD OF THE in classes 29 and 30 for foodstuffs.
Middle-earth Enterprises opposed the LORD OF THE mark on multiple bases, including that the mark was deceptively similar to its LORD OF THE RINGS word mark registered in class 30. Middle-earth Enterprises also sought to rely on the reputation of its The Lord of the Rings franchise, alleging that registration of LORD OF THE as a trade mark would cause confusion, that the mark was registered in bad faith and that the trade mark is contrary to consumer law.2
This case highlights how the overall impression conveyed by the mark is central to the question of deceptive similarity—the fact that LORD OF THE was wholly incorporated in LORD OF THE RINGS was not determinative. The decision also reinforces how general brand recognition and reputation alone is not enough to create a blanket protection across all goods and services. The approach is consistent with other recent decisions of IP Australia.
LORD OF THE vs LORD OF THE RINGS—Not Substantially Identical or Deceptively Similar
An application must be rejected if the mark is substantially identical with or deceptively similar to an earlier registration in respect of similar goods or closely related services.
Adopting the well-accepted side-by-side analysis, the Delegate considered that LORD OF THE was not substantially identical to LORD OF THE RINGS. The absence of the term “rings,” which was an obvious essential feature of Middle-earth Enterprises’ mark, created a total impression of dissimilarity.
On the question of deceptive similarity, the Delegate affirmed that the reputation of LORD OF THE RINGS was not a relevant factor.3 Central to the finding against deceptive similarity was the meaning of the phrase “LORD OF THE.” At [34] the Delegate stated:
The phrase ‘lord of the’ has a meaning of having power, authority or mastery over a particular domain. The number of possible domains are essentially infinite, noting though the popular uses of the domains ‘flies’ (as in the book), ‘dance’ (the popular Irish dance company) and ‘fries’ (the use by [Lord of the Fries]). It does not obviously bring to mind any particular domain, let alone ‘rings’.
THE LORD OF THE RINGS’ Reputation was not Enough
Middle-earth Enterprises produced extensive evidence relating to the significant and substantial reputation acquired in its THE LORD OF THE RINGS mark in Australia. However, the Delegate determined that such reputation was limited to books, movies and video games, and did not extend to foodstuffs (class 30). In fact, the only evidence of use provided by Middle-earth Enterprises in connection to foodstuffs in Australia was “a single marketing campaign to promote the movie series that took place approximately 20 years before the relevant date.”4
Accordingly, Middle-earth Enterprises sought to rely on the reputation and fame of LORD OF THE RINGS generally to support its argument of consumer confusion. Rejecting Middle-earth Enterprises’ contention, the Delegate considered that such an approach would implicitly afford the owner of a famous mark a monopoly far beyond the scope of the trade marks system.
Middle-earth Enterprises’ insufficient reputation in class 30 saw the Delegate find that consumer confusion was “highly unlikely to arise” in the present case, as there was “no realistic prospect” that a consumer faced with fries branded as LORD OF THE “would be caused to wonder if [Middle-earth Enterprises] had expanded into fast food.”5 The Delegate observed that “a sufficient degree of respect” must be afforded to the consuming public’s ability “to determine the difference between a piece of licensed intellectual property and an indicator of the source of their fast food.”6
The Delegate also considered and ultimately dismissed the opposition grounds relating to ownership, bad faith, and misleading and deceptive conduct.
Footnotes
1 Middle-earth Enterprises, LLC v LORD OF THE FRIES IP PTY LTD [2025] ATMO 48 (4 March 2025) (Middle-earth v LORD OF THE FRIES), accessible at https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/ATMO/2025/48.html.
2 see sections 42(b), 60 and 62A of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).
3 at [30]-[32] of Middle-earth v LORD OF THE FRIES, citing Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd v Allergan Australia Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 8, [49].
4 at [49] of Middle-earth v LORD OF THE FRIES.
5 at [55] of Middle-earth v LORD OF THE FRIES.
6 at [55] of Middle-earth v LORD OF THE FRIES.
Use of AI in Recruitment and Hiring – Considerations for EU and US Companies
1. Use of AI in Recruitment and Hiring
AI is transforming the recruitment landscape across the globe, making processes such as resume screening and candidate engagement more efficient by:
using keyword searches to automatically rank and eliminate candidates from a pool of applicants with minimal human oversight;
performing recruitment tasks via chatbots that interact with candidates;
formulating skills and aptitude tests; and
analyzing video interviews to assess a candidate’s suitability for a particular position.
In addition to maximizing efficiency, AI may also be used to make automated, substantive decisions related to recruitment, hiring, and performance through the use of predictive analytics that forecast a candidate’s success in a specific role.
2. Regulation of AI Use in the European Union and United States
The European Union has taken a united approach to AI regulation, and all EU member states are currently governed by the EU Regulation on Artificial Intelligence (EU AI Regulation), which took effect on Aug. 1, 2024. The EU AI Regulation’s scope applies to all providers and deployers based in the EU, as well as those that place an AI system on the EU market or use the results of an AI system in the EU. Parties located outside the EU should therefore be aware that the EU AI Regulation may apply to them, as well.
The EU AI Regulation categorizes AI systems into different risk categories, with the applicable rules becoming stricter as the risk to health, safety, and fundamental rights increases (for example, “minimal” regulation for spam filters; “limited” regulation for chatbots; “high” regulation for use in recruitment; and “unacceptable” use of AI for social scoring and facial recognition). HR tools are considered high-risk AI systems if they (1) are used for recruiting or selecting candidates; and/or (2) provide the basis for HR employment-related decisions, e.g., promoting or terminating employment or monitoring and evaluating performance and behavior.
As of Feb. 2, 2025, the EU AI Regulation requires companies to eliminate “unacceptable” AI systems (as defined by the law) and to thoroughly and comprehensively train all employees using AI systems with respect to compliant AI use under the regulation.
In contrast to the EU, the United States does not currently have uniform AI regulations on a federal level. Though the Biden administration had tasked government agencies such as the Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with monitoring the use of AI tools and issuing guidance to enhance compliance with anti-discrimination and privacy laws, in January 2025, President Trump expressed his support for deregulation, issuing an executive order entitled “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence Issues.” Federal agencies have since removed all previously issued guidance on AI use.
In response to the executive order advocating for AI deregulation, regulations governing the use of AI have been introduced and passed on the state level. However, legislation passed does not always become legally binding. For example, in February 2025, the Virginia legislature passed the High-Risk Artificial Intelligence Developer and Deployer Act, which would have required companies creating or using “high-risk” AI systems in employment as well as other areas to implement safeguards against “algorithmic discrimination” for such systems. However, the governor vetoed the Act on March 24, 2025, and so the Act does not currently apply.
3. AI Use May Trigger Other Legal Violations
Aside from complying with laws such as the EU AI Regulation, which specifically regulates the use of AI, companies using AI in their recruiting and hiring processes should be careful such use does not trigger a violation of other laws. For example:
Bias and Discrimination: Algorithms used by AI in recruitment and hiring may inadvertently perpetuate bias, leading to discrimination against candidates based on race, gender, age, or other protected characteristics. Discrimination is prohibited in the EU under Council Directive 2000/78/EC, which bans discrimination in employment, education, and public safety, as well in the United States via more than one hundred federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws.
Data Security and Ownership: Companies that enter the personal data of potential candidates into an AI system have certain legal obligations with respect to maintaining the security of such data, as well as considerations with respect to the ownership of such data. Such obligations are governed by the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which took effect on May 25, 2018. In the United States, more than 20 jurisdictions have passed laws imposing obligations on employers that use AI to collect and process candidate and employee data.
Invasion of Privacy: Employers that collect candidate and/or employee data via AI tools may inadvertently be invading the privacy of such candidates and employees, and should be mindful of applicable privacy laws, which may require the company to obtain consent from the candidate or employee prior to running certain searches.
4. Penalties for Non-Compliance
An EU employer that violates the above discrimination, data security, and privacy laws risks significant (yet lower than U.S.) damage awards, as well as high administrative penalties from agencies such as the European AI Office and national data protection authorities.
Damages claims for individual breaches can vary significantly between jurisdictions, and EU member states retain national autonomy in determining award sums. However, European Court of Justice (ECJ) landmark judgments emphasize the importance of issuing awards that correspond to the nature and extent of the EU-protected rights violated.
Certain European nations, such as Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Sweden, Austria, and Finland, have established statutory or customary upper limits on awardable damages to employees in the event a company fails to comply with applicable anti-discrimination regulations, with such damages ranging from the payment of EUR 500 to 104 weeks’ pay. In contrast, in Poland, Germany, and the Netherlands, damages are not formally limited, although in practice the awards are relatively low compared to the United States. The national laws of some European countries, such as UK, provide for punitive damages, which would further increase the sum of damages awarded.
In addition to the above, administrative fines for data security and privacy law violations under GDPR may reach up to the higher of EUR 20,000,000, or 4% of a company’s annual worldwide turnover for the preceding financial year.
Under the EU AI Regulation, both an EU employer and a non-EU employer using the results of an AI system in the EU can be fined up to the higher of EUR 35,000,000 or 7% of a company’s annual worldwide turnover for the preceding financial year. In the United States, penalties range depending on the jurisdiction. In New York City, for example, an employer may incur a fine of up to $500 for a first violation, and between $500 and $1,500 per day for each subsequent or continuing violation.
5. Considerations for Employers
To minimize exposure, employers should consider taking the following steps:
For the EU (including non-EU companies subject to EU laws as provided above):
–
Eliminate AI use deemed to be “unacceptable” under the EU AI Regulation.
–
Train employees to use AI in accordance with the EU AI Regulation, applicable data security and privacy laws, and company policies.
–
Prepare for additional new requirements scheduled to take effect in August 2026.
For the United States:
–
Inform candidates when using AI in recruiting and hiring and obtain informed written consent from a candidate prior to using AI for processing sensitive data.
–
Provide an alternate method of screening should the candidate decline the use of AI.
–
Use AI systems (including testing procedures) that provide clear parameters that can later be verified.
–
Conduct periodic independent bias testing of AI systems and recruitment tools.
–
Include human oversight in the decision-making process.
Thilo Ullrich and Dorothee von Einem also contributed to this article.
Quarterly Sanctions Update | Q2 2025
What’s New?
In the second quarter of 2025, EU and UK sanctions policy continued to take shape against a complex and shifting geopolitical backdrop. The European Union sharpened its focus on Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’ by proposing new sanctions, while also launching a Helpdesk to support small and medium-sized enterprises in navigating compliance requirements. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom imposed new restrictions on the provision of business software and technology to Russian entities and individuals, accompanied by detailed guidance for industry.
Beyond Russia, the European Union, United Kingdom, and United States maintain a coordinated and cautious approach to easing sanctions on Syria, following the fall of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
In this Q2 Sanctions Update, our global team provides an in-depth look at key developments introduced between March and May 2025 – highlighting what these changes mean for businesses across affected sectors.
In Depth
European Union
Sanctions Extended: The Council of the European Union extended its existing sanctions against Russia until mid-September.
New Sanctions in the Works: The Council is preparing its 17th sanctions package against Russia, which will again focus on curbing Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet”. The new package will impose sanctions on Russian oil tankers, target industries supporting Russia’s war effort and add to asset-freeze lists.
A Plan B? The next sanctions package is intended to complement sanctions by the United States, but the European Union is also developing a “Plan B” to sustain pressure on Russia if the Trump administration lifts sanctions or Hungary blocks the EU’s new package.
SWIFT Messaging Restricted: In March, the ban on SWIFT financial messaging was extended to 14 Russia-focused financial institutions: Ak Bars Bank, Uralsib Bank, Tochka Bank, National Reserve Bank, Roseximbank, Bank Sinara, Primsotsbank, BBR Bank, RNKO Platezhnyy Konstruktor, Petersburg Settlement Center, Kuznets Business Bank, MIR Business Bank and Bank Kuban Kredit.
Delays to Criminal Penalties: In 2024, the Council adopted Directive 2024/1226 criminalizing sanctions violations, that should have become Member States’ local law by May 20, 2025. Several Member States have experienced delays in implementing this Directive, including Germany and France, whose existing legal frameworks require some further adjustments to fully comply with the Directive, and Italy and Spain, who have not yet enacted specific legislation to implement the Directive. Despite the delay, Member States can still enforce sanctions based on existing frameworks.
Sanctions Helpdesk Launched: The European Commission introduced a Helpdesk to provide support to SMEs implementing EU sanctions worldwide. The Helpdesk will provide:
assistance on potential business transactions
explain specific prohibitions and obligations in regulations
advise on the design and development of compliance programs
Straightforward requests should receive a response within five working days and complex cases (involving Russia, Belarus and Iran) within ten working days. EU companies remain responsible for making final decisions regarding business opportunities and risks.
Enhanced Cooperation on Export Controls: In April, the EU released a Recommendation aimed at enhancing coordination of national control lists of dual-use items. Member States are encouraged to share information about their national control lists with each other and the European Commission, including sharing draft lists before they are formally adopted. The main goal is to improve the alignment of national export control lists with EU and multilateral standards, ensuring a more unified and effective approach to export controls across the European Union.
Report Outlines Evasion Tactics: In April, the EU’s joint two year project aimed at tackling sanctions circumvention concluded with an extensive report. It maps corporate assets linked to sanctioned ‘oligarchs’, provides comprehensive analysis of recurrent sanction evasion schemes as well as transnational ‘kleptocracy’ schemes. The findings underline the need to improve asset tracing and international cooperation to enforce sanctions. This resource may serve as valuable guidance for companies developing their sanctions compliance programs. Access the full report here.
More Clarification from Top Court Expected: The EU Court of Justice is spending much of its time on sanctions proceedings, with 117 of 573 preliminary ruling requests concerning sanctions in 2024. EU companies can expect further clarifications on sanctions from the Court this year, including greater clarity on ownership and control by a sanctioned individual via shares in a trust, and when a person is considered “associated” with a sanctioned person.
Gradual Lifting of Syria Sanctions: In February, the EU lifted some energy, transport, and financial sanctions against Syria, and rolled back some banking restrictions to facilitate humanitarian aid. Existing sanctions, such as limits on luxury goods and certain financial institutions, remain in effect.
United Kingdom
New Trade Sanctions Against Russia: The UK amended its existing Russian sanctions legislation in April, introducing restrictions on:
Software and Technology: The transfer or provision of business or oil and gas-related software and technology to Russian entities is now prohibited, including providing software or technology via download, cloud services or as a service. Exemptions for existing contracts apply. OFSI (Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation) amended its guidance to reflect the changes. OTSI (Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation) published guidance on software sanctions and technology transfer sanctions, reiterating that most technology-related sanctions apply to information, which may include intellectual property and trade secrets, and can take many forms, including blueprints, plants, diagrams, models, formulae, tables, engineering designs and specializations, as well as manuals and instructions.
Export/Import: Chemicals, plastics, metals, machinery and electronics that are critical to Russian industries (particularly the gas and chemical sectors) are now subject to export restrictions. While importing Russian synthetic diamonds processed in third countries, as well as Helium and Helium-3, is now prohibited.
New Guidance from Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI)
Insolvency Practitioners: OFSI published new guidance on obligations for insolvency practitioners, who are now required to promptly inform OFSI if they know or suspect they are dealing with a sanctioned individual or someone breaching UK sanctions.
Art market: OFSI also issued guidance for high-value dealers and art market participants, focusing on evasion techniques, due diligence and reporting requirements. Evasion schemes include frequently moving assets, using digital assets and regular payments from hidden sources. Effective compliance requires a robust program with training and resources. Participants must also regularly check UK sanctions lists when starting new client relationships and as transactions proceed.
Exemption Licenses: OFSI granted the following general licenses to allow companies to engage in otherwise prohibited activities:
Credit Suisse and UBS: authorising transfers of assets and liabilities as part of their merger.
Legal Services: a license authorising payments for legal fees from persons sanctioned under the Russia and Belarus regimes.
Arbitration Costs: a license authorising payments for arbitration fees and expenses from sanctioned persons.
Petrol Station Payments: a license authorising UK nationals to purchase petrol for personal vehicles from Gazprom Neft or its subsidiaries at petrol stations in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
Updates to Export Control List: The Export Control Joint Unit updated the UK Strategic Export Control List in May, amending the Export Control Order 2008 and the UK’s military and dual-use lists. These changes incorporate routine technical updates from international export control regimes, such as the Wassenaar Arrangement, and amend the fines which may be imposed for certain offences set out in Part 6 of the 2008 Order.
New Reports from OFSI
Annual Review Insights: OFSI published a review of its activities providing insight into its workload and strategy in the last financial year. Decisions were issued in 1,401 licensing cases during 2023-24, up from 503 the previous financial year. OFSI also closed three times as many investigations compared to the previous year, after introducing an intelligence led approach to enforcement.
Legal Services Threat Assessments: OFSI released a threat assessment identifying vulnerabilities in the legal sector’s sanctions compliance in April. It noted that legal services accounted for 16% of reported suspected sanctions breaches, mostly involving trusts and offshore structures.
Property and Related Services Threat Assessments: OFSI also published a threat assessment revealing that UK property firms are routinely used to maintain residential and commercial properties in breach of financial sanctions. These include unauthorized payments for property maintenance, household staff salaries, utility bills, and concierge services. OFSI highlighted the role of both professional and non-professional enablers (such as family members and associates) in helping to hide the beneficial ownership of sanctioned persons.
UK Support to Ukraine Factsheet: The UK Government published a summary of actions in support of Ukraine since Russia’s invasion. The factsheet offers insights into future UK policy direction, including building a “Coalition of the Willing” to support Ukraine’s long-term security.
Syria: The UK Government also lifted asset-freeze restrictions on 12 Syrian entities, including the Syrian Ministries of Defense and Interior, as well as several state-run media outlets in April. The aim is to boost investment in Syria’s financial and energy sectors and support the country’s reconstruction. Companies should carefully assess their Syria operations as other sanctions remain in force.
European Commission Previews New Round of Countermeasures Against the United States
In April 2025, the European Union (“EU”) set tariffs on a series of US imports but immediately suspended their application until 14 July 2025. This was due to the US almost simultaneously announcing that it would be softening its across-the-board tariffs. In the case of EU exports, this meant going from a 20% to a 10% general “reciprocal” tariff for three months to negotiate better US/EU trade arrangements.
Possible further EU countermeasures on imports of US goods
Regardless, the European Commission (“EC”) hopes to have new countermeasures ready in case the ongoing trade negotiations between the EU and the US “do not produce a satisfactory result.” The EC has published a list of EU Combined Nomenclature (“CN”) codes, which represent categories of US goods which could be subjected to even further retaliation by the EU if the US does not adequately resolve its tariff dispute with the EC (vid. here). Examples of industries with goods that could be affected by the proposed countermeasures are:
Agrifood
Agricultural equipment
Chemical hydrocarbons
Alcohol/Spirits
Metals
Appliances and other household items
Sports equipment
Automobile
Turbines / related
Seagoing vessels
Aircraft
Paper
On 8 May 2025, in light of the slow pace of the negotiations, the EC announced that it would be hosting a stakeholder consultation, running until 10 June 2025. All interested parties may participate in consultations, including EU stakeholders, as well as US and third-nation companies (vid. here). Any new countermeasures would presumably apply concurrently with those which were suspended in April 2025.
The EC has not indicated what form these new countermeasures might take. The most likely scenario is that they would mostly take the form of retaliatory tariffs. The suspended April countermeasures constitute ad valorem tariffs ranging from 10% to 25%, depending on the type of good(s) in question.
The EC aims to make their newly proposed countermeasure operable before the US’ three-month tariff respite ends. Therefore, it would likely seek to have its proposals adopted by the time the temporary suspension of the April 2025 countermeasures runs out (i.e. on 15 July 2025).
It is important to note that, as of now, these new countermeasures are merely a possibility. Indeed, they have been proposed, and their implementation is being envisaged. Nevertheless, they are not yet definitive, as that would require their formal adoption by the EC and subsequent publication in the EU’s Official Journal.
Possible EU export controls on US-bound goods
In tandem with the tariff countermeasures, the EC has also published a list of EU goods that could be subject to export controls when bound for the US (available here). This list is much shorter than the proposed US goods list discussed above, but it does contain certain key goods such as:
Ferrous waste and scrap;
Remelting scrap ingots of iron or steel;
Aluminum waste and scrap;
Toluidines and their derivatives, and salts thereof;
Mixtures of odoriferous substances and mixtures of a kind used as raw materials in the food or drink industries, as well as other preparations based on odoriferous substances; and
Certain enzymes.
According to the EC, exports restrictions would affect US-bound goods worth EUR 4.4 billion. The exact form that the possible export controls would take remains unknown.
During the aforementioned consultation period running until 10 June 2025, interested parties may likewise submit comments on the scope of these proposed export controls.
How we can help
The publication of the proposed lists of US and EU goods by the EC constitutes a significant moment in transatlantic trade relations. While the two parties are formally engaged in trade negotiations, the EU is now threatening to impose considerably more severe countermeasures on the US. This escalation could impact both importing and exporting companies, as well as businesses throughout the broader supply chains. Nevertheless, the EC’s stakeholder consultations provide a valuable opportunity to engage with EU authorities on this situation to advocate for targeted, meaningful adjustments. Time is of the essence for companies who wish to participate in the consultation. An effective, evidence-based submission must be made before the 10 June 2025 deadline.
Belgian DPA Finds Broad Tax Information Transfers to IRS Unlawful
The Belgian Data Protection Authority recently ruled that a Belgian government entity, FPS Finance, cannot transfer the personal data of “accidental Americans” to the IRS. According to the decision, the transfers needed to cease for several reasons.
The case was brought by a dual US-Belgian citizen, who, while a US citizen by birth, did not reside in the US or otherwise have any significant connections to the US (i.e., an “accidental American”). He argued that his personal information should not be transferred to the US, even though the US’s Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act requires all US citizens to report their tax information to the US to combat terrorism and prevent tax evasion. That law is enforced in Belgium through a 2014 bilateral treaty, which was entered into before the GDPR’s effective date. The Belgian tax authority argued that it could make the transfer under a GDPR exception (Article 96), which allows pre-GDPR international agreements, such as this one, to remain in place if they comply with the law in effect at the time. Thus, the Belgian DPA examined not only whether the transfer violated GDPR (as the individual argued) but also whether it violated the laws in existence at the time the treaty was signed.
The Belgian DPA found that the transfers did not comply with pre-GDPR law because the amount of information being transferred exceeded what was necessary to meet the specified purposes. Further, the FATCA was not compliant with current GDPR standards. The Belgian DPA also emphasized that FATCA, as implemented, lacked sufficient safeguards to protect the personal data of EU residents, especially those with tenuous or accidental ties to the US. The Belgian DPA gave FPS Finance a year to modify its transfer process. This included minimizing the amount of data transferred, conducting a data transfer impact assessment, and giving individuals more information about its data processing activities.
Putting it Into Practice: This decision is a reminder that there may an increase in scrutiny of data transfers to the US. While the facts in this case were narrow, we expect that there may be other, similar, decisions in the future.
Listen to this post
Germany: Bureaucracy Out, Digital In? The New Government’s Plans for Labour and Employment
After long negotiations between the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats, the parties agreed to establish a coalition to form the new government and Friedrich Merz was eventually elected on 6 May 2025 as new Chancelor of Germany. The coalition agreement published by the parties offers insight into their agenda. While not the primary focus of the agreement, there are several initiatives that aim to address certain labour and employment issues of relevance to the German market.
Streamlining the future of work
The coalition agreement outlines several key initiatives designed to enhance Germany’s competitiveness as a business hub, particularly by furthering digitalisation and streamlining bureaucracy. This commitment is also reflected in their plans for addressing L&E-related issues:
Promoting qualified immigration, particularly by digitalising processes in an effort to accelerate the recognition of professional qualifications from other countries
Further reducing the written form requirements in employment law, e.g. for contracts under the Part-Time and Limited Term Employment Act (Teilzeit- und Befristungsgesetz). For further details on the previous changes that took effect in January 2025, please refer to our recent blog post on the Bureaucracy Relief Act.
Digitalisation of collective labour rights
Collective labour law is particularly impacted by the effort to digitalise employment processes:
Enabling the use of online works council meetings (Betriebsratssitzung) and works meetings (Betriebsversammlung) as an alternative to in-person meetings
Implementing an optional digital voting process for the works council elections in 2026
Right to digital access, i.e. the right to use existing digital communication channels as an alternative to the notice board for advertising among others collective labour events and opportunities
Improving Flexibility
The new government is also seeking to implement a change to the Working Hours Act (Arbeitszeitgesetz) that would allow for maximum weekly instead of daily working hours. The current position is a daily maximum of eight (or in exceptions, ten) working hours.
To comply with the EU Working Time Directive, a maximum of 48 weekly working hours would generally be permitted. Exceptions would have to be made for certain workers, e.g., for those working nightshift. Additionally, a new concept is required to allow for the increase in flexibility while still ensuring the workers’ health, safety and adequate rest time. The coalition agreement does not provide any specifics as to how this will be achieved.
According to coalition parties, the adjustment is intended to enhance the compatibility of family and work. However, while the new regulations would not constitute an increase in weekly working hours, they are likely to benefit employers by allowing for more flexible schedules due to the decreased regulations. Examples could be agreeing on a permanent 4-day week with no reduction in pay or the option to offset short-term spikes in workload by ordering work for more than 10 hours a day. Once these changes are implemented, employee handbooks or works agreements referencing maximum working hours may require changes to comply with the new regulations.
The parties also plan to implement an obligation to digitally record working hours for employers. Following the implementation, a transition period will be established during which small and mid-size companies will be exempt from the new requirements. However, the obligation does not extend to trust-based working hours. Therefore, the decision to pursue this option remains at the discretion of employers.
A further initiative aimed squarely at increasing productivity is exempting overtime income of full-time employees from income tax. The definition of overtime in this context is any working time that exceeds 34 hours in the case of employees with a CBA, or 40 hours in the case of employees without a CBA.
If employers offer bonuses to part-time employees for increasing their working hours, these bonuses remain tax-free according to the parties’ plans. It remains to be seen how the coalition will deal with attempts to exploit such bonuses.
Allowing for a smooth transition after reaching retirement age
Many employers and employees are interested in maintaining their existing employment relationship after the employee reaches the standard retirement age. However, given the restrictions in the Part-Time and Limited Term Employment Act, most flexible solutions are not viable. In most cases, employers are currently only able to establish long-term employment relationships that do not adequately address the challenges associated with such employment.
The coalition agreement now includes a plan to lift the ban on pre-employment after reaching the standard retirement age in the Part-Time and Limited Term Employment Act. This would allow employees to remain in a familiar work environment while transitioning to a reduced or limited role within their organisation. Lifting the ban would be a welcome change for both parties to an employment relationship as it would provide reliable planning and legal certainty.
The effort to encourage individuals to remain in the workforce after reaching the standard retirement age also includes plans to exempt up to EUR 2,000 of such employees’ income from income taxes.
Strengthening unions
The coalition parties plan to make compliance with collective bargaining agreements a prerequisite for the awarding of federal contracts worth EUR 50,000 or more and for start-ups with “innovative services” in the first four years after their establishment for projects worth EUR 100,000 or more.
The parties also aim to enhance the appeal of trade union memberships by offering tax incentives for their members.
Other initiatives
While these initiatives are also part of the coalition agreement, how or even if they will be implemented is less certain for some than others:
Raising the minimum wage to EUR 15 per hour by 2026, which is explicitly labeled as something that may be feasible
Implementing a legal framework for AI at the workplace
Summary
The agreement encompasses a combination of measures that are favourable to employers and those that are principally intended to strengthen employee rights. However, none of them legally binding. Thus, the agreement is, in essence, a mere collection of potential initiatives. It is not feasible for it to be realised in its entirety within the next four years. Immediate action is therefore not required. Nevertheless, it provides the most comprehensive insight into the incoming government’s plans and as a result, what employers may expect in upcoming legislative periods.
China’s Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate Release Typical Cases of Criminal IP Enforcement for 2024
On April 24, 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) released the Typical Cases of Criminal IP Enforcement for 2024 (知识产权刑事保护典型案例). This batch was released to show how the newly-issued Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights applies in criminal cases. This batch involves several foreign IP owners including Lego and Universal Studios. In addition, two criminal trade secret theft cases made the list.
As jointly explained by the SPP and SPC:
Case 1
Case of Shanghai XX Education Technology Co., Ltd. and Yao XX counterfeiting registered trademarks
【Basic Facts】
Lego and “LEGO Education” are registered trademark of Lego Co., Ltd., and the approved services are education, training, entertainment competitions, etc. The defendant, Shanghai XX Education Technology Co., Ltd., rented a store to operate the “LC Lego Robot Center”, and the defendant Yao was the actual operator of the company. From March to June 2021, Yao displayed the authorization letters, Lego Education coach qualification certificates and other documents purchased from others that counterfeited the registered trademarks of ” Lego” ” and “LEGO Education”, and used ” Lego” and other logos for store signs, decorations, posters, employee clothing, shopping mall signs, etc., to provide education and training services. Shanghai XX Education Technology Co., Ltd. collected more than 510,000 RMB in training course fees, most of which was used by the company.
[Judgment Result]
The Third Branch of the Shanghai People’s Procuratorate accused the defendant Shanghai XX Education Technology Co., Ltd. and the defendant Yao of the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks and filed a public prosecution with the Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court. After trial, the Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court held that Shanghai XX Education Technology Co., Ltd. used the same trademark as the registered trademark on the same service without the permission of the registered trademark owner, and Yao was the directly responsible supervisor of the unit, both of which constituted the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, and therefore sentenced them to punishment.
【Typical significance】
The “Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (XI)” amended Article 213 of the Criminal Law, bringing the counterfeiting of registered service trademarks into the scope of regulation of the Criminal Law, and strengthening the criminal protection of registered trademarks. In this case, it was determined that the education and training services provided by the defendant unit and the services approved for use by the service registered trademark of the right holder were the same type of services, and the training fees collected by the defendant unit were used as the basis for conviction, which was in line with the provisions of the Criminal Law. The “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights” further clarified the identification standards for “the same type of service” based on the actual situation such as the characteristics of the service industry, stipulated that the amount of illegal income was the standard for conviction of the crime of counterfeiting registered service trademarks, and further clarified that the service fees collected by the perpetrators were illegal income.
Case 2
Long et al. counterfeit registered trademark case
【Basic Facts】
The products approved for use by Rong’s registered trademark are “medical isolation gowns, surgical gowns”, etc. From December 2021 to January 2022, the defendants Long, Gao, Chen, Yuan, and Zeng, after planning, purchased protective clothing and packaging materials without the permission of Rong, the registered trademark owner, and packaged disposable medical protective clothing on their own, and sold them with Rong’s registered trademark attached. Among them, Long was responsible for contacting to purchase packaging materials, Gao, Chen, and Yuan were responsible for purchasing protective clothing, Yuan also provided an account for collecting payments, Zeng contacted private factories for OEM production of counterfeit medical protective clothing, and hired workers to package protective clothing. Long and others sold more than 40,000 sets of disposable medical protective clothing, with an illegal business amount of more than 580,000 RMB.
[Judgment Result]
The People’s Procuratorate of Nanchang High-tech Industrial Development Zone, Jiangxi Province, accused the defendant Long and others of the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks and filed a public prosecution with the People’s Court of Nanchang High-tech Industrial Development Zone. After trial, the People’s Court of Nanchang High-tech Industrial Development Zone held that the goods “disposable medical protective clothing” and “medical isolation clothing and surgical clothing” approved for the registered trademarks are basically the same in terms of product functions, uses, main raw materials, consumer objects, sales channels, etc., and the relevant public believes that they are the same kind of goods, which belongs to the “same kind of goods” stipulated in Article 213 of the Criminal Law. Long and others used the same trademark as the registered trademark on the same kind of goods without the permission of the registered trademark owner, which constituted a joint crime, and the amount of illegal business was more than 580,000 RMB, which constituted the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, and were sentenced to punishment.
【Typical significance】
The identification of “the same kind of goods” is a difficult issue in handling criminal cases involving counterfeit registered trademarks. In practice, when the name of the goods produced and sold by the perpetrator is different from the name of the goods approved for use by the registered trademark of the right holder, if the two are the same or basically the same in terms of function, purpose, main raw materials, consumer objects, sales channels, etc., and the relevant public generally believes that they are the same kind of goods, they should be identified as “the same kind of goods”. In this case, the infringing goods and the goods approved for use by the registered trademark of the right holder are “the same kind of goods” in accordance with the law, and the defendants were accurately sentenced according to the law based on their roles in the joint crime, effectively cracking down on the illegal and criminal acts of manufacturing and selling counterfeit medical products. The “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights” further clarifies the identification standards of “the same kind of goods” based on actual conditions. In addition, in order to accurately crack down on crimes of infringement of intellectual property rights in accordance with the law, the judicial interpretation clarifies the specific circumstances in which joint crimes are punished.
Case 3
Case of Lu XX et al. counterfeiting registered trademarks
【Basic Facts】
From November 2019 to August 2022, the defendant Lu XX and others, without the permission of the registered trademark right holder, commissioned others to produce trademarks such as “HARRY POTTER” and “UNIVERSAL STUDIOS”, and produced magic robes, scarves, ties and other Universal Studios Harry Potter products with the above trademarks through self-processing, sewing and labeling, and then sold them, with an illegal business amount of more than 11.25 million RMB. The public security organs seized 25,730 counterfeit registered trademark products and 72,550 hang tags, collar labels, washing labels, etc. in the premises operated by Lu XX.
[Judgment Result]
The People’s Procuratorate of Tongzhou District, Beijing, accused the defendant Lu XX and others of the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks and filed a public prosecution with the People’s Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing. The People’s Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing held that the registered trademark owner registered trademarks such as “HARRY POTTER” and “UNIVERSAL STUDIOS”, and the alleged infringing mark added elements that lacked distinctive features after “UNIVERSAL STUDIOS”, which did not affect the distinctive features of the registered trademark and was an “identical trademark”. Lu XX and others used trademarks identical to their registered trademarks on the same kind of goods without the permission of the registered trademark owner, which constituted the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks and were sentenced to punishment.
【Typical significance】
In order to further combat the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks and unify and clarify the identification standards of “identical trademarks”, the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Infringement” clarified the identification standards of identical trademarks. In this case, the addition of elements lacking distinctive features to the alleged infringing mark does not affect the distinctive features of the registered trademark and should be identified as a trademark identical to the registered trademark, demonstrating the concept of strict intellectual property protection.
Case 4
Zhao XX and Zhang XX’s patent counterfeiting case
【Basic Facts】
The defendants Zhao XX and Zhang XX run a biotechnology company. Since 2021, the two have printed the invention patent number of a Chinese medicine research company’s “A method for preparing a purslane extract” on the cosmetics packaging produced by their company without the permission of the Chinese medicine research company, and sold cosmetics that counterfeit the above patent. Zhao and Zhang sold counterfeit cosmetics with the above patent for more than 990,000 RMB, and the value of the counterfeit cosmetics with the above patent that have not yet been sold is more than 570,000 RMB, and the total amount of illegal business is more than 1.56 million RMB.
[Judgment Result]
The People’s Procuratorate of Baiyun District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, accused the defendants Zhao and Zhang of patent counterfeiting and filed a public prosecution with the Baiyun District People’s Court of Guangzhou City. After trial, the Baiyun District People’s Court of Guangzhou City held that Zhao and Zhang had been operating a cosmetics production company for many years. They knew that the use of patent marks or patent numbers should be authorized by the patent owner, but they still marked other people’s patent numbers on the product packaging without the permission of the patent owner, misleading the public into believing that the cosmetics were patented products. This was an act of “counterfeiting other people’s patents” and the circumstances were serious, constituting the crime of patent counterfeiting, and therefore sentenced them to punishment.
【Typical significance】
The crime of patent counterfeiting regulates the act of counterfeiting other people’s patents without the permission of the patent owner. Falsely marking other people’s patent numbers to mislead the public into believing that the products sold are legally produced and manufactured by the patent subject damages the legitimate rights and interests of the patent owner and disrupts the market economic order. If the circumstances are serious, criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with the law. The “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Infringement” clarifies the specific circumstances of counterfeiting other people’s patents and the standard for “serious circumstances” to strengthen criminal protection of patents.
Case 5
Copyright infringement case of Zhang and Sun
【Basic Facts】
Between the end of 2017 and January 2023, the defendants Zhang and Sun, etc., developed and operated a number of film and television aggregation apps for the purpose of profit. Zhang, Sun, etc. downloaded popular audiovisual works without the permission of the copyright owner and uploaded them to a rented cloud storage server, and purchased technical analysis services from others, and provided audiovisual works playback and download services to the public through the multiple apps they operated. Through the technical analysis service, the public can obtain the audiovisual works from the above-mentioned multiple apps involved in the case without jumping to the network platform of the relevant copyright owner. Zhang, Sun, etc. made profits by publishing paid advertisements and collecting advertising promotion fees in the multiple apps involved in the case. Among them, Zhang, Sun, etc. disseminated more than 72,000 audiovisual works through “hotlinking”.
[Judgment Result]
The People’s Procuratorate of Xinwu District, Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province, accused the defendants Zhang and Sun of copyright infringement and filed a public prosecution with the People’s Court of Xinwu District, Wuxi City. The People’s Court of Xinwu District, Wuxi City held that Zhang and Sun objectively made the relevant audiovisual works directly appear on the multiple apps involved in the case by “stealing links”, which was an act of “providing” works. The public was able to obtain the above-mentioned audiovisual works from the multiple apps involved in the case at a time and place selected by individuals and directly play and download them, infringing the copyright owner’s right to disseminate through information networks, which was an act of “disseminating to the public through information networks” as stipulated in Article 217 of the Criminal Law. Zhang and Sun disseminated audiovisual works to the public through information networks for the purpose of profit without the permission of the copyright owner, which constituted the crime of copyright infringement and were sentenced to punishment.
【Typical significance】
The “Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (XI)” clearly stipulates that “dissemination to the public through information networks” is an implementation behavior, which is distinguished from “copying and distributing”. Without the permission of the copyright owner, “dissemination to the public through information networks” infringes the copyright owner’s information network dissemination right. According to the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights”, if a person provides works, audio and video products, and performances to the public by wire or wireless means without permission, so that the public can obtain them at the time and place of their choice, it shall be deemed as “dissemination to the public through information networks” as stipulated in Article 217 of the Criminal Law. With the emergence of new technologies in the field of information dissemination, more and more technologies similar to “hotlinking” can avoid the link of uploading works, allowing users to obtain corresponding works, which is very harmful to society. Based on the specific methods of “hotlinking” and its social harm, this case is determined to be an information network dissemination behavior, which infringes the copyright owner’s information network dissemination right, which is conducive to accurately defining the nature of deep linking behaviors such as “hotlinking.”
Case 6
Liu XX’s and Liu YY’s copyright infringement case
【Basic Facts】
From March 2019 to July 2022, the defendant Liu XX, for the purpose of profit, without the permission of the copyright owner, made dongles to circumvent the technical protection measures of copyright, copied related software without authorization, and sold dongles and pirated software. Liu XX also instructed the defendant Liu YY to sell dongles and pirated software. During this period, Liu XX was responsible for making the dongles, copying pirated software, putting goods on shelves, sending express delivery, etc., and Liu YY was responsible for account customer service, collection, etc. The illegal business amounts involved by Liu XX and Liu YY were more than 1.06 million RMB and more than 140,000 RMB, respectively. The dongles sold by Liu XX and Liu YY can circumvent the technical protection measures taken by the copyright owner for their software copyrights.
[Judgment Result]
The Third Branch of the Shanghai People’s Procuratorate accused the defendants Liu XX and Liu YY of copyright infringement and filed a public prosecution with the Third Intermediate People’s Court of Shanghai. The Third Intermediate People’s Court of Shanghai held that Liu XX and Liu YY, for the purpose of profit, deliberately circumvented the technical measures taken by the copyright owner to protect the copyright for their works without the permission of the copyright owner. In particular, Liu Sheng produced and sold dongles and pirated software, etc., and was at the source of the industrial chain in the relevant series of cases. The act of providing devices to circumvent technical measures has great social harm. Liu XX’s circumstances are particularly serious, and Liu YY’s circumstances are serious. Both of them have committed the crime of copyright infringement and were sentenced to punishment.
【Typical significance】
The “Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (XI)” includes the act of circumventing technological measures in the scope of regulation of the crime of copyright infringement, further strengthening the criminal protection of copyright. The social harm caused by providing devices for circumventing technological measures is great, and it is a criminal act stipulated in the Criminal Law. In this case, Liu XX and Liu YY were held criminally responsible for the crime of copyright infringement in accordance with the law, fully protecting the legitimate rights of copyright owners, and demonstrating the strength and determination to strengthen criminal judicial protection of intellectual property rights and serve the innovative development of the digital economy. The “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Infringement” clearly stipulates that the act of intentionally providing devices, components, and technical services for circumventing technological measures constitutes the crime of copyright infringement.
Case 7
Case of Lin XX et al. infringing copyright and Liu XX et al. selling infringing copies
【Basic Facts】
From 2019 to February 2023, the defendant Lin and others copied and distributed “scripted murder game” works by scanning, typesetting, printing and other means without the permission of the copyright owner, and the illegal business amount was more than 5.4 million RMB. The defendants Liu, Yang XX, and Yang YY knew that the “scripted murder games” sold by Lin and others were infringing copies without the permission of the copyright owner, but they still purchased them and sold them to the outside. Among them, Liu’s sales amount was more than 7.38 million RMB, and Yang XX’s and Yang YY’s sales amount was more than 3.12 million RMB.
[Judgment Result]
The People’s Procuratorate of Nanhu District, Jiaxing City, Zhejiang Province, accused the defendant Lin and others of copyright infringement, and the defendants Liu , Yang XX, and Yang YY of selling infringing copies, and filed public prosecutions with the Nanhu District People’s Court of Jiaxing City. The Nanhu District People’s Court of Jiaxing City held that Lin and others, for the purpose of profit, copied and distributed literary works and works of art without the permission of the copyright owner, which constituted copyright infringement; Liu, Yang XX, and Yang YY sold infringing copies, which constituted the crime of selling infringing copies, and sentenced them to punishment.
【Typical significance】
The “Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (XI)” has amended the provisions for the crime of selling infringing copies, and changed “huge illegal proceeds” to “huge illegal proceeds or other serious circumstances”, expanding the circumstances for conviction. In order to further crack down on illegal and criminal acts of copyright infringement and improve the standards for conviction, the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Infringement” stipulates that “sales amount”, “value of goods” and “number of copies” are “other serious circumstances.” In order to further distinguish between the crime of copyright infringement and the crime of selling infringing copies, the judicial interpretation clarifies that the “copying and distribution” in the crime of copyright infringement does not include the simple “distribution” behavior. Distributing infringing copies made by others by selling them should be deemed as the crime of selling infringing copies. This series of cases was convicted and sentenced for the crime of copyright infringement and the crime of selling infringing copies according to the specific acts committed by each defendant, which is in line with the spirit of the judicial interpretation.
Case 8
Case of Wang XX infringing on trade secrets
【Basic Facts】
From April 2020 to April 2021, the defendant Wang worked in a certain automobile company in Wuhu. On March 23, 2021, Wang was preparing to switch to a new energy automobile company in Zhejiang to engage in electrical appliance research and development. In order to bring the switch control technology of a certain automobile company in Wuhu to a certain new energy automobile company in Zhejiang, on the evening of April 4, 2021, Wang dismantled the computer hard disk of the leaders of Group 1 and Group 2 of the Intelligent Vehicle Technology Center of a certain automobile company in Wuhu, which he had no authority to view, and took it away, and uploaded the technical information of the “center console switch assembly” and “one-button start ” of a certain model of automobile switch system in the computer hard disk to his own Baidu cloud account. After evaluation, the reasonable license fee for the above two technical information is 1.14 million RMB.
[Judgment Result]
The People’s Procuratorate of Wuhu Economic and Technological Development Zone, Anhui Province, accused the defendant Wang of violating trade secrets and filed a public prosecution with the People’s Court of Wuhu Economic and Technological Development Zone. The People’s Court of Wuhu Economic and Technological Development Zone held that the technical information contained in the technical drawings of the “center console switch assembly” and “one-button start ” in the switch system of a certain model of a certain automobile company in Wuhu was a trade secret. Wang obtained trade secrets by dismantling and taking away the computer hard drive, which was an act of obtaining trade secrets by improper means of theft. The amount of loss can be determined according to the reasonable license fee of the trade secret. The circumstances were serious and constituted the crime of violating trade secrets, so he was sentenced to punishment.
【Typical significance】
The “Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (XI)” changed the standard for conviction of the crime of infringing on trade secrets from “causing major losses to the rights holder of the trade secrets” to “serious circumstances”, increasing the criminal protection of trade secrets. The person who obtains trade secrets by improper means does not have legal knowledge or possession of the trade secrets before, and his act of obtaining trade secrets by improper means is itself illegal and should be severely punished. If a trade secret is obtained by improper means, the amount of loss of the rights holder can be determined according to the reasonable license fee of the trade secret, and it is not required to use the trade secret for production and operation to cause profit loss. In this case, according to the provisions of the Criminal Law, Wang’s behavior was determined to be “serious circumstances” and he was sentenced in accordance with the law, demonstrating the strict protection of innovative achievements. The “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights” further clarified the standard for determining “serious circumstances..
Case 9
Case of Luo XX and Sun XX spying, buying and illegally providing commercial secrets an overseas entity
【Basic Facts】
In August 2022, the defendant Sun accepted the commission of a foreign person and provided him with commercial information on new energy batteries of a certain technology company for a fee. After Sun discussed with the defendant Luo, Luo obtained the company’s new energy battery research and development data, future industrial layout and other commercial information from relevant personnel of a certain technology company through illegal means such as espionage and bribery, and Sun provided it to the foreign person. Sun received a remuneration of more than 110,000 RMB, of which 70,000 RMB was paid to Luo . In April 2023, Luo directly accepted the commission of the foreign person and again provided commercial information of a certain technology company and received a remuneration of 100,000 RMB.
[Judgment Result]
The People’s Procuratorate of Yinzhou District, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, accused the defendants Luo and Sun of spying, buying, and illegally providing commercial secrets for foreign countries, and filed a public prosecution with the People’s Court of Yinzhou District, Ningbo City. After trial, the People’s Court of Yinzhou District, Ningbo City held that the new energy battery research and development data and future industrial layout information illegally provided by Sun and Luo to foreign personnel were commercial secrets, and Luo and Sun constituted the crime of spying, buying, and illegally providing commercial secrets for foreign countries, and sentenced them to punishment.
【Typical significance】
In order to maintain a fair and competitive market economic order, the “Criminal Law Amendment (XI) of the People’s Republic of China” adds the crime of stealing, spying, buying, and illegally providing trade secrets from abroad, improves the criminal law network, and strengthens the criminal protection of trade secrets. This crime is a behavioral crime, and criminal liability can be pursued without requiring the circumstances to be serious. The “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights” stipulates the specific circumstances of the “serious circumstances” for the sentencing standard of this crime, which is consistent with the circumstances of conviction for the crime of infringing trade secrets, etc., to ensure the effective connection between the conviction and sentencing of the two crimes.
UK Business Immigration – The Immigration White Paper is Here
The government’s long awaited White Paper Restoring Control over the Immigration System has been published today. As part of the Home Secretary’s foreword in the Paper, she states that the plan will “restore order, control and fairness to the system, bring down net migration and promote economic growth”. The proposals signal a marked tightening of the UK’s approach to both legal and illegal migration, or so it says, as the Paper lacks much of the detail which would be required to substantiate that.
It is not yet clear how or when these new measures will be introduced (they are described as ‘plans’ throughout the Paper). As ever, the devil will be in the detail but we have summarised the key points likely to affect UK businesses, with our commentary below:
Skilled Worker skill threshold: This will increase from RQF 3 (A level) to RQF 6 (Graduate level) or above. This will mean that the number of eligible occupations will be reduced by around 180. This will not affect existing Skilled Worker visa holders who will continue to be able to renew their visa, change employment and take supplementary employment, in currently eligible occupations below RQF 6. However, applicants from overseas or those applying to switch from other routes will have to meet the higher skills threshold. We are also told that salary thresholds will rise but without any detail on the level of increase. These measures could be introduced relatively quickly so employers intending to sponsor lower skilled workers (including existing employees with Graduate visas) should consider submitting applications sooner rather than later.
Temporary Shortage List: Occupations with a skills requirement of RQF 3-5 (below degree level) will only qualify for sponsorship on a time limited basis where they are included on a new Temporary Shortage List. Occupations will only be included on the list where
there have been long term shortages,
the Migration Advisory Committee has advised it is justified,
there is a workforce strategy in place, and
employers seeking to recruit from abroad are committed to playing their part in increasing recruitment from the domestic workforce.
In this sense, it appears that the requirement to carry out additional training to be able to use the Skilled Worker route will not apply to an employer sponsoring roles skilled at RQF 6 or above.
Immigration Skills Charge: this is currently £1,000 (for medium/large sponsors) or £364 (small sponsors) per year of sponsorship and is paid up front at the time of the application, and will be increased by 32%. Again, this could be introduced at short notice so employers should consider accelerating planned applications to beat the increase deadline.
English Language requirement for visa applications:
Increased language requirements for Skilled Workers and workers where a language requirement already applies from B1 to B2 (Independent User) levels, in accordance with the Common European Framework for Reference for Languages (CEFR).
A new English language requirement for all adult dependants of workers and students at level A1 (Basic User) to align to spousal and partner routes, likely increasing this requirement over time.
Requirements to demonstrate progression to level A2 (Basic User) for any visa extension, and B2 (Independent User) for settlement.
Increase existing requirements for settlement across the majority of immigration routes from B1 to B2 (Independent User).
For employers hiring applicants whose first language is not English, this may mean longer lead-in times before submitting applications and/or dependants applying to join the main applicant in the UK at a later date once their English language ability meets the required threshold.
Graduate visas: these currently allow international students who have completed an eligible higher education qualification in the UK to work for any employer in any role, and will be reduced from 2 years to 18 months.
Compliance: the Paper talks in general terms about innovative financial measures, penalties or sanctions, measures which will support compliance with visa conditions, the establishment of the Fair Work Agency to co-ordinate stronger action against exploitative employers, tougher rules on sponsors flouting employment law, strengthening the civil penalty regime, increasing resources into preventing illegal working as well as using visas and modern biometric technology to support raids. However, there is no detail about what any of this will mean in practice.
Earned Settlement: the qualifying period for settlement for Skilled Worker visa holders will increase from five to ten years, although individuals will also have the opportunity to reduce that period through contributions to the UK economy and society. The government will consult on these changes later this year so it unlikely that anything will change in the short term.
Social Care visa route: This will be closed to new applications from abroad. For a transition period until 2028, permit visa extensions and in-country switching for those already in the country with working rights will be permitted but this will be kept under review.
Labour Market Evidence Group: We are told that the group “will focus on sectors / occupations which are central to industrial strategy, which currently have high levels of reliance on migration for their workforce, or which are anticipated to in future and will make recommendations about sectors or occupations where workforce strategies are needed, or where the labour market is currently failing” and “drawing upon the evidence base gathered by the LME Group, key sectors where there are high levels of recruitment from abroad will need to produce, or update, a workforce strategy which relevant employers will be expected to comply with. This will detail steps to be taken on skills, training, and broader conditions, as well as engagement of the economically inactive domestic labour force”.
Global talent: the Paper talks in general terms about: “ensuring that the very highly skilled have opportunities to come to the UK and access our targeted routes for the brightest and best global talent” and “Increasing the number of people arriving on our very high talent routes, alongside faster routes for bringing people to the UK who have the right skills and experience to supercharge UK growth in strategic industries” and “a targeted and capped expansion of the HPI route, looking to double the number of qualifying institutions, whilst maintaining the focus of the route on individuals that will have the most benefit to the UK workforce and ensuring that any necessary safeguards are in place” but provides no detail beyond that to be of any material assistance to UK employers at this stage.
What action should employers take?
Although some of the planned changes will be subject to consultation via the Migration Advisory Committee and/or require new legislation, others could be introduced within a matter of weeks or months through changes to the Immigration Rules. UK businesses reliant on employing overseas workers should therefore:
Review the skill level of their sponsored workforce (both existing and prospective) and consider whether any applications should be submitted earlier than originally planned.
Review recruitment budgets and forecasts to take into account the increase in the Immigration Skills Charge and the ongoing cost of maintaining a Skilled Worker visa for 10 years rather than 5.