Mexico Simplifies Procedures Before Its Federal Commission for Protection Against Sanitary Risks
On March 27, 2025, Mexico’s Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS) published an agreement in the Official Gazette of the Federation (DOF) outlining simplification measures for COFEPRIS procedures.
Key simplification actions include:
(i) Eliminating mandatory use of the “Notice of Operation, Sanitary Responsible and Modification or Cancellation” form for filing notices of operation and sanitary responsibility for health-related supply establishments and environmental health establishments, in their various modalities.
(ii) Eliminating mandatory use of the “Notice of the original establishment responsible for the cancellation of the sanitary responsible” when modifying or cancelling notices of operation and/or sanitary responsibility for health-related supply establishments and environmental health establishments, in its different modalities.(iii) Merging procedures COFEPRIS-05-006-A, COFEPRIS-05-006-B, COFEPRIS-05-006-C, COFEPRIS-05-006-D, and COFEPRIS-05-006-E into “Notice of operations and sanitary responsible for health-related supply establishments,” with different modalities.(iv) Merging procedures COFEPRIS-05-007-A, COFEPRIS-05-007-B, COFEPRIS-05-007-C, COFEPRIS-05-007-D, and COFEPRIS-05-007-E into “Notice of Modification or Cancellation of the Notice of Operation and/or Sanitary Responsibility of the Health-Related Supply Establishments,” with different modalities.
The agreement will enter into force 15 business days after its publication in the DOF.
New USTR Measures Target Chinese Maritime Sector: What You Need to Know
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) issued a detailed notice on April 17, 2025, regarding actions and proposed actions in response to China’s alleged targeting of the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance. The measures, USTR argues, will “disincentivize the use of Chinese shipping and Chinese-built ships, thereby providing leverage on China to change its acts, policies, and practices, and send a critically needed demand signal for U.S.-built ships.” Below, we break down the key elements of the notice and their potential impacts.
Background
The USTR launched an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Trade Act”) following a petition received by five national labor unions on March 12, 2024. The petition alleged that China’s policies unfairly harm U.S. commerce by targeting dominance in critical maritime-related sectors. Following a review, USTR determined that these practices displace foreign firms, reduce opportunities for U.S. businesses, and weaken supply chain resilience due to dependencies on China’s controlled sectors. As a result, in the closing days of the Biden administration, USTR issued a determination that these actions are unreasonable and actionable under the Trade Act.
The investigation revealed that China’s dominance strategy restricts U.S. competition, undermines supply chain security, and creates vulnerabilities in critical economic sectors. In response, on February 21, 2025, the USTR issued a Federal Register notice proposing certain responsive actions, including service fees and restrictions on certain maritime transport services, which resulted in the USTR convening a two-day public hearing and receiving nearly 600 public comments from industry stakeholders. USTR published its determination on responsive actions on April 17, 2025, Notice of Action and Proposed Action in Section 301 Investigation of China’s Targeting the Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors for Dominance, Request for Comments.
Key Elements of the Notice of Action
Restrictions on Chinese Vessel Operators, Owners, and Chinese-Built Vessels. The plan includes a first phase with a 180-day grace period, after which fees will be implemented on Chinese vessel owners and operators calling in the United States based on net tonnage. Chinese operators and owners will face a port fee of $50 per net ton beginning on October 14, 2025, which will increase by $30 a year over the next three years.
Chinese-built vessels that are not Chinese-owned or controlled will face a lower phased fees of $18 per net ton or $120 per discharged container, whichever is higher. Those fees will also increase by $5 per net ton annually until 2028, with container fees increasing proportionally.
The fees will be applied per U.S. voyage, and not at each U.S. port call, as had been initially proposed, remedying objections raised by smaller U.S. ports. The fees will also only be levied up to five times per year on any given ship.
All Liquified Natural Gas (“LNG”) carrier vessels (whether Chinese-built or Chinese-owned or operated) are exempt from the new fees, but the carriage of LNG from U.S. ports is subject to separate cargo reservation requirements outlined below.
A number of exemptions were adopted to address objections raised in the March comment period by various U.S. shippers, ports, terminals, and regional carriers. These exemptions are only available Chinese-built vessels that are not Chinese-owned or operated. They include:
U.S.-owned vessels, where the U.S. entity owning the vessel is controlled by U.S. persons and is at least 75 percent beneficially owned by U.S. persons;
Vessels arriving at U.S. ports empty or in ballast (to avoid impacts to U.S. exports);
Smaller and medium-size vessels (with a capacity equal to or less than 4,000 Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units (“TEU”), 55,000 Deadweight Tonnage (“DWT”), or individual bulk capacity of 80,000 DWT);
Vessels engaged in shortsea shipping (entering a U.S. port in the continental United States from a voyage of less than 2,000 nautical miles from a foreign port or point);
Specialized chemical tanker vessels; and
Vessels enrolled in certain U.S. Maritime Administration sealift programs
Restrictions on Foreign-Built Vehicle Carriers and LNG Exports. Non-U.S.-built vehicle carriers will face fees based on Car Equivalent Unit (“CEU”) capacity, starting at $0 for the first 180 days and rising to $150 per CEU capacity thereafter. Beginning April 17, 2028, phased restrictions will require a growing percentage of U.S. LNG exports to be transported on U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged, and U.S.-operated vessels. This percentage will increase gradually over 22 years.
Proposed Tariffs on Ship-to-Shore Cranes and Cargo Handling Equipment. The notice proposes additional duties of up to 100 percent on cranes manufactured, assembled, or made with components of Chinese origin. Certain cargo handling equipment, including specific containers, chassis, and chassis parts from China, will also face tariffs ranging from 20 percent to 100 percent.
Significant Takeaways from the Proposed Actions
No Cumulative Fees. The Notice of Action clarified that the fees are not cumulative or stacked. A vessel will only be charged one fee per voyage/string of voyages and is limited to five charges per year.
Phased Tonnage-Based Fee on Chinese Vessel Operators and Owners. The February Proposed Action proposed a flat rate fee of up to U.S. $1,000,000 per vessel entrance to a U.S. port or up to U.S. $1,000 per net tonnage (“NT”) of the vessel’s capacity. The Notice of Action contains a fee of U.S. $50 per NT (after the first 180 days), which will increase incrementally. While the burden on smaller ships is reduced, under the new formula fees on large tankers and containerships could be more than double the flat fees proposed in February.
No Fees Based on Chinese Fleet Composition. The Notice of Action did away with one of the most controversial aspects of the February proposal, i.e., fees based on fleet composition for maritime transport operators with fleets comprised of Chinese-built vessels or maritime transport operators with prospective orders for Chinese vessels.
Expansive Definition of Chinese Owners and Operators, Including Minority Shareholding Test. The Notice of Action includes multiple alternative tests for determining if a vessel owner or operator is Chinese for the purpose of the fee schedule. Chinese owner or operator status can be triggered by country of citizenship or organization, ownership, control, headquarters location, principal place of business, and other factors. An entity will be deemed a Chinese owner or operator even if only 25 percent of the entity’s outstanding voting interest, board seats, or equity interest is held directly or indirectly by an entity that is a national or resident of China, Hong Kong, or Macau, or organized under the laws of those jurisdictions, or has its principal place of business there. The 25 percent threshold may pose new challenges for publicly traded and widely held companies and funds outside China that have some China-linked investor participation.
Lack of Clarity Regarding Other Key Definitions. “Owner” and “Operator” are defined in the notice by reference to Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Form 1300 (Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement); however, those terms are not actually defined in that CBP form or any accompanying rules. Accordingly, uncertainty about these key terms remains—regarding, for example, the “owner” status of lease-finance title holders and owners pro hac vice (i.e., bareboat charterers); and the “operator” status of technical managers, commercial managers, document of compliance holders, and others that share responsibility for vessel activities and compliance.
Fees on Vessel Operators of All Foreign Vehicle Carriers (not just Chinese-Built Ships). These fees are imposed any non-U.S. built vehicle carrier and are not limited to those vehicle carriers built in China. Like the cargo reservation provisions for LNG, this action is likely to draw protests and challenges that it exceeds USTR’s authority, as new fees on European, Korean, and Japanese car carriers have no apparent nexus to alleged Chinese shipbuilding and maritime practices.
Cargo Reservation Requirements for LNG Exports. While USTR previously proposed a requirement that a mandatory percentage (increasing over time) of all U.S. exports be carried on U.S.-flagged, U.S.-built vessels, the current notice limits this cargo reservation requirement to LNG cargo only. Also, some exporters favor expanding the notice’s special treatment of LNG to other types of liquified gas and natural gas liquids exports.
Public Participation and Deadlines.
The comment period to the proposed tariff action opened on April 17, 2025. While USTR only solicited feedback on the tariff proposal, the docket is likely to attract commentary on the broader range of new remedies and issues introduced in the notice. USTR also will hold a public hearing on this proposed action on May 19, 2025, at the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington, D.C. Requests to appear at the public hearing must be submitted by May 8, 2025, with written comments due by May 19, 2025. Rebuttal comments to the public hearing must be submitted within seven calendar days after the last day of the hearing.
Conclusion and Next Steps
The USTR’s notice introduces significant measures targeting China’s position in the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors. Key actions include the imposition of fees on Chinese maritime transport services, restrictions on U.S. LNG exports, fees on all non-U.S. car carriers, and proposed tariffs on vital shipping equipment. Stakeholders are encouraged to review the proposed measures and submit comments or requests to appear at the hearing by the specified deadlines. Companies involved in maritime transportation should begin preparing for the phased implementation of fees and restrictions.
For additional information, stakeholders can contact the USTR Section 301 support line at (202) 395-5725.
RUSSIA DISCOVERS THE TCPA?: Russian Appellate Court Allows Consumer to Sue Bank for $61.00 Over Unwanted Calls
While the idea of suing over unwanted phone calls is nothing new for litigious Americans its quite novel elsewhere in the world–and a man in Russia might be the first to have invented the claim across the pond.
Apparently a Russian appellate court has recognized a constitutional right to privacy that can be invaded when a bank sends unwanted marketing messages after being asked to stop.
In the case a Russian guy asked the bank to stop calling but it ignored him. He sued for “moral damage” of 5,000 rubles– about $61.00. The lower court through out the case but the appellate court found the claim to have merit and ordered a trial on the issue of the calls.
Here in America, of course, consumers can–and often do– sue for unwanted phone calls under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). And unlike the limited damages recognized in Russia, the TCPA allows consumers to collect $500-$1,500.00 per unwanted call or text.
But there are limits in America as there are in Russia.
As one Russian authority stated in response to the ruling:
“Unfortunately, people themselves often forget that they gave consent to the processing of their data and to receive advertising information. In such cases, advertising is distributed legally. And consent has no statute of limitations if the contract did not specify its term, even if you signed it 20 years ago.”
True in Russia as it is in America.
Many websites collect consent for advertising and contact and then sell those consents far and wide as permitted in the fine print. As a result many companies will buy these “leads” and make totally legal phone calls that the consumer had forgotten–or perhaps never really understood– they requested.
While this is fascinating we will have to wait and see whether the idea of suing over unwanted calls catches on anywhere else.
Source : https://m.realnoevremya.com/articles/8741-russians-allowed-to-punish-banks-for-spam?_url=%2Farticles%2F8741-russians-allowed-to-punish-banks-for-spam#from_desktop
If The Shares of a Chinese Company Are Delisted, What Happens to Trading in California?
Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal includes a story about the possible delisting of shares of Chinese companies. Shares of companies that are listed, or authorized for listing, on a national securities exchange (or tier or segment thereof) are classified as “covered securities”under Section 18(b)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933. As such, state laws requiring registration or qualification are preempted. Therefore, delisting will result in covered security status. What does this mean for California?
Section 25130 of the California Corporations Code makes it unlawful for any person to offer or sell any security “in this state” (Section 25008) in any “nonissuer transaction” (Section 25011) unless it is qualified for sale or exempt from qualification. Thus, the immediate consequence of delisting will be that secondary trading of shares of the delisted companies will require either qualification or an exemption.
Following delisting, licensed broker-dealers to effect offers or sales but only if they are made pursuant to an unsolicited order or offer to buy. Cal. Corp. Code § 25104(b). For purposes of this exemption, an inquiry regarding a written bid for a security or a written solicitation of an offer to sell a security made by another broker-dealer within the previous 60 days is not considered a solicitation of an order or offer to buy. Id. A rule, 10 CCR § 260.104, establishes a presumption that an order or offer to buy is not unsolicited if the broker-dealer knows, or has reason to know, that the order or offer to buy is in response to one or more activities specified in the rule.
Bona fide owners may also offer or sell a security for their own account if the sale is (i) not accompanied by the publication (Section 25014) of any advertisement (Section 25002); and (ii) is not effected by or through a broker-dealer in a public offering.
It is also possible that other exemptions from Section 25130 will be available depending upon the particular circumstances (e.g., 10 CCR § 260.105.11).
The bottom line is that if a company is delisted from a national securities exchange, the company and those trading in the companies shares will need to consider applicable California requirements and exemptions.
Webinar Recording: The EU Omnibus Proposals on Sustainability and Simplification – What It Means for Your Reporting and Compliance Strategy [Video]
In April, we hosted a webinar featuring Thomas Delille, Marion Seranne, Begonia Filgueira, and Dr. Nora Thies to discuss the European Commission’s EU Omnibus Proposals, released in February 2025. These proposals could significantly reshape the EU regulatory landscape on sustainability reporting and corporate due diligence, with direct implications for frameworks like Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), EU Taxonomy and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).
Our expert panel covered the latest developments, member state positions, emerging legal risks, and the commercial impact of ESG reforms. With many businesses now facing an uncertain legislative timeline, the discussion focused on how to adapt compliance strategies and reporting plans to this evolving environment.
Watch the full recording below for key insights into how these proposals could affect your ESG obligations and what you can do to stay ahead.
China’s Supreme People’s Court Releases “Status of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Chinese Courts (2024)” – Criminal IP Enforcement Up 24% in 2024
On April 21, 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court released the “Status of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Chinese Courts (2024)” (中国法院知识产权司法保护状况(2024年)) providing a wealth of data regarding Chinese IP litigation in 2024. Criminal IP enforcement continues to grow in China with Chinese courts receiving 9,120 first-instance criminal cases involving infringement on IP and concluding 9,003 such cases, marking increases of 24.34% and 29.22% compared to 2023, respectively. Overall, Chinese courts received 529,370 IP cases and concluded 543,911 cases, representing a decrease of 2.67% and an increase of 0.001% respectively over 2023.
First Instance Civil IP Cases Received – 2024 vs. 2023
First Instance Criminal IP Cases Received – 2024 vs. 2023
Other statistics released include:
Punitive damages were applied in 460 cases involving seriously malicious infringement, marking a year-on-year(YoY) increase of 44.2%.
Newly received patent cases totaled 44,255, down 1.02% compared to the previous year;
trademark cases numbered 124,918, down 4.95% from the previous year;
copyright cases amounted to 247,149, down 1.8% compared to 2023;
technology contract cases reached 8,320, up 28.16% YoY;
competition-related cases totaled 10,567, up 3.29% YoY; and
other types of civil IP disputes amounted to 14,714, down 16.53% YoY.
Chinese courts accepted 20,849 administrative IP cases of the first instance and 27,745 were concluded, showing increases of 1.29% and 24.19% from 2023, respectively.
newly received patent cases totaled 1,679, down 15.63% YoY;
trademark cases numbered 19,130, up 3.08% YoY;
copyright cases stood at 9, decreasing by 2 cases compared to 2023; and
other types of cases totaled 31, up 29.17% YoY.
Chinese courts received 9,120 first-instance criminal cases involving infringement on IP and concluded 9,003 such cases, marking increases of 24.34% and 29.22% compared to 2023, respectively.
1 criminal case related to patent counterfeiting was newly received, and 2 such cases were concluded;
8,079 were criminal cases involving registered trademark infringement, and 8,017 such cases were concluded, representing YoY increases of 21.78% and 26.11%;
938 were criminal cases involving copyright infringement, with 913 such cases concluded, reflecting YoY increases of 49.6% and 68.14% respectively;
102 other criminal cases were newly filed, while 77 such cases were concluded in the same year, up 39.73% and 7.58% YoY, respectively.
The full text in Chinese and English is available here: 中国法院知识产权司法保护状况（2024).
Mexico Overhauls Federal Data Protection Law
Isabel Davara F. de Marcos of Davara Abogados S.C. reports that on March 20, 2025, the Mexican Congress approved a new Federal Law on the Protection of Personal Data Held by Private Parties (“LFPDPPP”), replacing the previous 2010 federal data protection law. The LFPDPPP, which became effective March 21, 2025, represents a substantial change in Mexico’s data protection framework, impacting the scope of application, legal bases for data processing, and individual rights. Relevant updates and considerations for companies operating in Mexico include:
expanded definition of personal data;
broader legal bases for processing;
stricter privacy notice requirements;
enhanced individual rights over automated processing; and
increased fines and a new judicial structure (i.e., the creation of specialized data protection courts to handle legal proceedings, including constitutional rights lawsuits).
The LFPDPPP dissolves the National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information and Personal Data Protection, transferring its authority to a newly created Secretariat of Anti-Corruption and Good Governance. This body will oversee compliance, conduct investigations, and impose sanctions.
Promulgating regulations are expected to be issued within 90 days from the law’s effective date, which are expected to clarify the scope and operational details of the law.
Navigating New Compliance Challenges for Financial Institutions and Payment Processors: The U.S. Treasury’s Enhanced Terrorist Finance Tracking Program
In a significant move to combat illicit financial activities focused on cartels, the U.S. government has intensified its scrutiny of cross-border payments, particularly those linked to Mexico. This development follows the designation of several Mexican cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (“FTOs”) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (“SDGTs”). These actions, coupled with the expanded use of the U.S. Treasury’s Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (“TFTP”), signal a new era of regulatory oversight for financial institutions and payment processors.
Key Developments
Cartel Designations and Legal Implications: On February 20, 2025, the U.S. Department of State designated eight cartels, including six based in Mexico, as FTOs and SDGTs. These designations expand criminal liability for knowingly providing material support to these organizations and authorize the U.S. Treasury to block financial transactions involving designated entities and their affiliates.
Southwest Border Geographic Targeting Order (“GTO”): The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) has issued a Southwest Border GTO, requiring money services businesses (“MSBs”) in 30 ZIP codes across California and Texas to report cash transactions exceeding $200 but not more than $10,000 within 15 days effective from April 14 through September 9, 2025. This measure increases recordkeeping or reporting requirements and aims to enhance monitoring of financial flows near the United States-Mexico border. FinCEN also encourages the filing of SARs to report transactions conducted to evade the $200 threshold despite the SAR regulation dollar threshold (i.e., transactions that involve or aggregate to at least $2,000).
Enhanced Role of TFTP: The TFTP will play a pivotal role in monitoring and enforcing these new sanctions. By leveraging financial intelligence tools, U.S. regulators aim to identify potential sanctions violations, even in routine business transactions.
Penalties for Failing to Report: If a business or its representatives willfully violate a GTO as of March 14, 2025, they may face: (1) Civil Penalties: The higher of $71,545 or the transaction amount, up to $286,184, with separate penalties for each violation; or (2) Criminal Penalties: Fines up to $250,000 and/or up to five years of imprisonment.
FinCEN released FAQ’s on the GTO on April 16, 2025.
Implications for Financial Services and Payment Processors
Increased Recordkeeping or Reporting Requirements: Financial institutions are now required to block funds in which a designated cartel or its agents have an interest. This will test already existing compliance frameworks, including enhanced due diligence and transaction monitoring systems. The Southwest Border GTO further intensifies these requirements by mandating Currency Transaction Reports for cash transactions exceeding $200 in designated regions. Institutions also face strict liability for sanctions breaches under the SDGT designations.
Regulatory Risks: Companies engaged in cross-border transactions, particularly with Mexico, may face greater regulatory scrutiny. This includes industries or entities directly or indirectly linked to designated organizations. The TFTP enables regulators to flag routine transactions for additional review, increasing the risk of enforcement actions.
Technology: Payment processors and MSBs must adapt to new reporting requirements and should consider implementing advanced analytics to detect potential sanctions violations. This includes leveraging financial intelligence tools to identify suspicious patterns and mitigate risks.
Data Privacy and Security: The TFTP’s reliance on financial transaction data raises questions about data privacy and security. Institutions should balance compliance with privacy regulations while ensuring the integrity of their systems.
To navigate the evolving regulatory landscape shaped by the U.S. Treasury’s Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP) and related measures, financial services and payment processing companies should take proactive steps to monitor and react to these changes.
Court Affirms $1.6B Judgment in Baha Mar Investor Dispute
A New York appeals court has affirmed a $1.6 billion award for the developer of a Bahamas mega project against various subsidiaries of China State Construction Engineering Corporation, the world’s largest construction company by revenue (see BML Properties, Ltd. v. China Construction America, Inc. et al., No. 6567550/17, 2025 WL 1033736 (N.Y. App. Div. Apr. 8, 2025)). The dispute involves construction of the Baha Mar beach resort complex in Nassau. After a series of delays that prevented the resort from opening as planned in March 2015, the developer BML Properties, Ltd., filed for bankruptcy and sued various state-owned entities, including the minority investor, prime contractor, construction manager, and others for breach of contract, fraud, and alter ego theories. After an 11-day bench trial, the lower court pierced the defendants’ corporate veils and awarded the developer $845 million for the loss of its entire investment plus prejudgment interest of $830 million.
The appellate court affirmed. As to veil piercing, the court held that the prime contractor entity exercised complete domination over the other defendants in order to breach the investor agreement, defraud the plaintiff, and cause the collapse of the project. The court also found that the minority investor entity failed to act in the best interests of the project. This included stripping manpower and resources from the project, diverting funds from the project that were meant for subcontractors, and causing or authorizing delays. These breaches of the investor agreement prevented the resort from opening and resulted in the loss of the developer’s entire investment. The appellate court also affirmed the lower court’s fraud finding based on internal communications showing that the construction manager entity knew that a March 2015 opening date – as represented to the developer – was impossible. The appellate court held that these misrepresentations regarding the defendants’ ability to perform were sufficient to support a finding a fraud.
A copy of the court’s decision is available here. The 2,200 room Baha Mar beach resort did eventually open in 2017 at a total estimated cost of $4 billion.
Beijing Intellectual Property Court: Artificial Intelligence Models Can Be Protected with the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, Not the Copyright Law
In what is believed to be a case of first impression in China, on March 31, 2025, the Beijing IP Court, on appeal, ruled that Douyin (TikTok) was entitled to protection of its artificial intelligence (AI) transformation model under Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law but not under Copyright Law. Specifically, the Beijing IP Court upheld the original judgement against the defendant/appellant Yiruike Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (亿睿科信息技术（北京）有限公司) for violating Douyin’s competitive interest in its transformation model with the B612 app.
Example transformations. Column 1: Selfie, Column 2: Baidu; Column 3: Douyin; Column 4: Yiruike .
The transformation special effects model (including architecture and parameters) was trained by Douyin Company using animated character data hand-drawn by artists and corresponding real-life data, and the model architecture and parameters were continuously adjusted. The model is used for the transformation special effects function in the Douyin application, which can convert photos and videos taken by users in real time into animated character styles. The B612 application operated by Yiruike later launched the animated girl character special effects function, which can also achieve real-time conversion of animated character styles. Douyin believes that Yiruike’s animated girl character special effects model and its transformation animated character special effects model are highly similar in architecture, parameters, etc., constituting infringement, and requested damages and an injunction. After comparison, Beijing IP Court ruled that the models of both parties are highly identical in architecture, convolutional layer data, etc. and Yiruike failed to submit evidence of substantial differences.
The Beijing IP Court pointed out that the competitive interest claimed by Douyin Company in this case is protected by Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and includes the transformation animated character special effects model (the architecture and parameters claimed by the plaintiff in this case). According to the evidence in the case, it can be determined that Douyin Company has invested a lot of resources in the research and development of the transformation special effects model, and the model of the transformation special effects (architecture and parameters) has obtained innovative advantages, operating income and market benefits for Douyin Company, which should constitute a competitive interest protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Based on the facts ascertained in this case, it can be determined that Yiruike Company directly used the architecture and parameters of the transformation special effects model of Douyin Company without permission. The alleged behavior violated the recognized business ethics in the field of artificial intelligence models, infringed the legitimate rights and interests of Douyin Company, disrupted the market competition order and damaged the long-term interests of consumers, and constituted unfair competition under Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Accordingly, the Beijing IP Court upheld the lower court’s decision.
The case numbers are (2023）京73民终3802号 and (2023）京73民终3803号. A redacted copy of the decision can be found here (Chinese only) courtesy of 知产宝.
State Department Revokes Existing Visas and Bans the Issuance of New Visas for South Sudanese Passport Holders
On April 5, 2025, the U.S. Department of State announced it was taking immediate action to revoke all existing visas and ban the issuance of any new visas for all South Sudanese passport holders.
Quick Hits
The United States will revoke all existing visas held by South Sudanese passport holders.
U.S. consulates and embassies abroad will be prevented from issuing any new visas for South Sudanese passport holders.
South Sudanese passport holders who are not currently in the United States are banned from entering the United States until further notice.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a press release announcing that the State Department would take immediate action to revoke any existing visas and prevent the issuance of any new visas for any individual holding a South Sudanese passport. Secretary Rubio stated that the State Department was implementing this ban in response to the South Sudan transitional government’s refusal to accept South Sudanese citizens who had been ordered removed from the United States.
How Long Will the Restrictions Last?
It is unclear how long this ban will be in effect. The State Department noted that it would review the visa revocation and ban if the South Sudanese government began accepting its returning citizens in cooperation with U.S. removal efforts.
South Sudan was one of the forty-three countries under consideration for a travel ban earlier this month. There are no indicators as to whether the State Department will issue bans for other countries on the list at this time.
Federal Judge Order Suspends Termination of Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan (CHNV) Parole Program
On April 14, 2025, a Massachusetts federal district court judge issued a temporary nationwide order suspending the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) termination of the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV) parole program. The termination was set to take effect on April 24, 2025, and would have ended parole authorization and any associated benefits, including work authorization for individuals in the United States under the CHNV parole program. The judge’s decision stays or suspends the categorical cancellation of this program.
Quick Hits
A federal district court judge has issued a temporary nationwide order halting the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s termination of the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV) parole program, which was set to end on April 24, 2025.
This decision allows individuals under the CHNV parole program to stay in the United States and maintain their work authorizations until their current parole periods expire.
The court’s order provides temporary relief while further litigation is pending, but individuals will need to seek alternative immigration options to remain in the United States beyond their parole periods.
Background
Section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes the secretary of homeland security, at the secretary’s discretion, to “parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he [or she] may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States.” Parole allows noncitizens who may otherwise be inadmissible to enter the United States for a temporary period and for a specific purpose.
The Biden administration implemented a temporary parole program for Venezuelans in October 2022, and later expanded the parole program to include Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguan nationals in January 2023. Individuals within this program apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) in the (c)(11) category. The Biden administration announced in October 2024 that it would not extend legal status for individuals who were permitted to enter the United States under the CHNV parole program, but encouraged CHNV beneficiaries to seek alternative immigration options.
On March 25, 2025, DHS published a Federal Register notice announcing the immediate termination of the CHNV parole program. The termination was set to take effect within thirty days of the date of publication of the notice, or April 24, 2025. On April 14, U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, issued a nationwide order staying or temporarily suspending the implementation of the categorical termination of the CHNV parole program.
Key Takeaways
Pending further litigation, the federal district judge’s order results in the following:
Individuals paroled into the United States pursuant to the CHNV parole programs may remain in the United States through their originally stated parole end date.
Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) issued to individuals admitted under the CHNV parole programs will remain valid through the expiration date listed on the EAD.
Individuals seeking to remain in the United States past the expiration of their parole periods must seek an alternative immigration status to remain in the United States.