Category: Trade

Design Patent vs. Trade Dress: Strategic Considerations for Protecting Product Designs

Product designs often serve as the cornerstone of a brand’s identity, evoking instant recognition and loyalty among consumers. From the iconic silhouette of Coca-Cola’s glass bottle to the distinctive shape of Gibson guitars, the visual appeal of product designs can be a critical asset in the competitive marketplace. However, protecting a product design requires careful consideration and strategic planning. Two forms of IP protection are the most common – design patents and trade dress.

1. Design Patents

Design patents offer a streamlined and cost-effective means of protecting the ornamental appearance of product designs. The allowance rate is extremely high – over 95% – and is usually complete within 18 months. The result is that a design patent is significantly easier and less expensive to obtain as compared to conventional utility patents. This might explain the growing popularity of design patents for protecting product designs across various industries.

Design Patents Filed by Industry1

Enforcing design patents can sometimes be more streamlined as compared to utility patents. For example, a design patent can be quickly enforced on the Amazon Brand Registry and other e-commerce platforms against copycat products sold on the platform. While Amazon does offer a procedure for utility patent enforcement, it tends to be more expensive and unpredictable.

However, design patents are not always an option. For example, a design patent can protect a functional article, but the protection only applies to the ornamental appearance of that article. So, a design patent on Crocs footwear does not protect the overall idea of a ventilated shoe. Instead, the protection only extends to the overall ornamental appearance of the shoe. And this protection only lasts for 15 years after the patent issues.

A design patent risks being overly narrow if its drawings contain too many solid lines. To counter this, a common practice involves converting unnecessary solid lines into dashed lines to broaden the patent’s scope and enhance its exclusionary effect. An example is below – the dashed lines do not narrow the design and are only provided to show the environment in which the design exists.

Is the End of Crocs Really Upon Us? Not So Fast. - The Fashion Law

Figure from Crocs Design Patent – U.S. Design Patent No. D517,789

2. Trade Dress

Trade dress is a form of trademark that protects the commercial look and feel of a product. Like all trademarks, trade dress indicates or identifies the source of the product and protects against consumer confusion in the marketplace. A classic example is the Coca-Cola bottle and how its shape and design immediately connect a consumer to the Coca-Cola brand:

A black and white drawing of a bottle Description automatically generated

Coca-Cola Bottle Trade Dress – U.S. Registration No. 696,147

 

Trade dress protection offers several advantages. It can sometimes be considered broader than a design patent because it attaches to any confusingly similar design. Additionally, trade dress protection is not limited to a 15-year term, like a design patent, and can continue for as long as the trade dress is used commercially in the marketplace.

So why not protect every product design as trade dress? First, product trade dress is not protectable unless it has “acquired distinctiveness” in the minds of consumers.
The Coca-Cola bottle serves as an example; its distinctive shape immediately invokes consumer association with the brand, demonstrating its acquired distinctiveness. However, proving acquired distinctiveness can be difficult and usually requires consumer survey evidence or other more costly endeavors. As a result, trade dress protection is less common than design patent protection for product designs.

Second, trade dress protection does not extend to any functional aspect of the product. The functionality requirement of trade dress protection is stricter than that of design patents – anything that is “essential to the use or purpose of the product or [that] affects the cost or quality of the product”2 cannot be protected as trade dress. Many product designs include functions that cannot be separated from their branded “look and feel” and this disqualifies the design from trade dress protection.

Determining the optimal form of protection for a product design hinges on the specific attributes of the design and its commercial significance to the company. Navigating the path to protection demands meticulous attention to crafting intellectual property rights that are expansive yet defensible.

Footnotes

[1] This chart reflects the top ten owners of design patents over the past five years.

[2] Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.,456 U.S. 844 (1982).

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California
by: Patrick T. Muffo , Hillary E. Maynard of Polsinelli PC
For more news on product design protections, visit the NLR Intellectual Property section.

Understanding How U.S. Export Controls Affect Manufacturers’ Hiring Practices

The U.S. government has adjusted export control regulations in an effort to protect U.S. national security interests. The revisions primarily affect export of electronic computing items and semiconductors to prevent foreign powers from obtaining critical technologies that may threaten national security. As manufacturers are facing increased demand for their products and critical labor shortages, they may find themselves seeking to hire foreign national talent and navigating U.S. export control and immigration and anti-discrimination laws.

Export Control Laws in United States

The primary export control laws in the United States are the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Under these regulations, U.S. Persons working for U.S. companies can access export-controlled items without authorization from the U.S. government. U.S. Persons include: U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, Lawful permanent residents, Refugees, and Asylees. Employers might need authorization from the appropriate federal agency to “export” (in lay terms, share or release) export-controlled items to workers who are not U.S. Persons, which the regulations call foreign persons. Employers apply for such authorization from either the U.S. Department of State or the U.S. Department of Commerce, depending on the item.

The release of technical data or technology to a foreign person that occurs within the United States is “deemed” to be an export to the foreign person’s “home country.” Whether an export license is required for a particular release may depend on both the nature of export controls applicable to the technology or technical data (including whether it is subject to the ITAR or EAR) and the citizenship of the foreign person.

Recent revisions to the EAR cover controls on advanced computing integrated circuits (ICs), computer commodities that contain such ICs, and certain semiconductor manufacturing items, among other controls. These revisions particularly affect semiconductor and chip manufacturers and exporters.

Intersection With Immigration and Anti-Discrimination Laws

The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 prohibit discrimination based on protected characteristics.

The INA prohibits discrimination based on national origin or citizenship, among other characteristics. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race and national origin, which typically includes discrimination based on citizenship or immigration status. Furthermore, the INA prohibits “unfair documentary practices,” which are identified as instances where employers request more or different documents than those necessary to verify employment eligibility or request such documents with the intent to discriminate based on national origin or citizenship.

The intersection of export control laws, immigration, and anti-discrimination laws can create a confusing landscape for employers, particularly manufacturers or exporters of export-controlled items. Manufacturers and exporters, like all employers, must collect identity and employment authorization documentation to ensure I-9 compliance. At the same time, however, they must collect information relating to a U.S. Person in connection with export compliance assessments. To address these areas of exposure for employers, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division released an employer fact sheet to provide guidance for employers that includes best practices to avoid discrimination.

Implications

To ensure compliance under these rules, employers should separate the I-9 employment authorization documentation process from the export control U.S. Person or foreign person identification process. Employers should implement or revisit internal procedures and provide updated training to employees.

The export rule revisions highlight the challenges for employers in avoiding discrimination when complying with export control laws. Manufacturers and exporters should review their compliance practices regarding U.S. export control, immigration, and anti-discrimination laws with experienced counsel. Employers should implement policies and procedures reasonably tailored to address export control compliance requirements while not engaging in discrimination on the basis of citizenship or national origin.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2024

by: Maurice G. Jenkins , Kimberly M. Bennett of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more news on Export Control Laws, visit the NLR Antitrust & Trade Regulation section.

Third Time’s a Charm? SEC & CFTC Finalize Amendments to Form PF

On February 8, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) jointly adopted amendments to Form PF, the confidential reporting form for certain registered investment advisers to private funds. Form PF’s dual purpose is to assist the SEC’s and CFTC’s regulatory oversight of private fund advisers (who may be both SEC-registered investment advisers and also registered with the CFTC as commodity pool operators or commodity trading advisers) and investor protection efforts, as well as help the Financial Stability Oversight Council monitor systemic risk. In addition, the SEC entered into a memorandum of understanding with the CFTC to facilitate data sharing between the two agencies regarding information submitted on Form PF.

Continued Spotlight on Private Funds

The continued focus on private funds and private fund advisers is a recurring theme. The SEC recently adopted controversial and sweeping new rules governing many activities of private funds and private fund advisers. The SEC’s Division of Examinations also continues to highlight private funds in its annual examination priorities. Form PF is similarly no stranger to recent revisions and expansions in its scope. First, in May 2023, the SEC adopted requirements for certain advisers to hedge funds and private equity funds to provide current reporting of key events (within 72 hours). Second, in July 2023, the SEC finalized amendments to Form PF for large liquidity fund advisers to align their reporting requirements with those of money market funds. And last week, this third set of amendments to Form PF, briefly discussed below.

SEC Commissioner Peirce, in dissent:

“Boundless curiosity is wonderful in a small child; it is a less attractive trait in regulatory agencies…. Systemic risk involves the forest — trying to monitor the state of every individual tree at every given moment in time is a distraction and trades off the mistaken belief that we have the capacity to draw meaning from limitless amounts of discrete and often disparate information. Unbridled curiosity seems to be driving this decision rather than demonstrated need.”

Additional Reporting by Large Hedge Fund Advisers on Qualifying Hedge Funds

These amendments will, among other things, expand the reporting requirements for large hedge fund advisers with regard to “qualifying hedge funds” (i.e., hedge funds with a net asset value of at least $500 million). The amendments will require additional disclosures in the following categories:

  • Investment exposures, borrowing and counterparty exposures, currency exposures, country and industry exposures;
  • Market factor effects;
  • Central clearing counterparty reporting;
  • Risk metrics;
  • Investment performance by strategy;
  • Portfolio, financing, and investor liquidity; and
  • Turnover.

While the final amendments increase the amount of fund-level information the Commission will receive with regard to individual qualifying hedge funds, at the same time, the Commission has eliminated the aggregate reporting requirements in Section 2a of Form PF (noting, in its view, that such aggregate information can be misleading).

Enhanced Reporting by All Hedge Funds

The amendments will require more detailed reporting on Form PF regarding:

  • Hedge fund investment strategies (while digital assets are now an available strategy to select from, the SEC opted not to adopt its proposed definition of digital assets, instead noting that if a strategy can be classified as both a digital asset strategy and another strategy, the adviser should report the strategy as the non-digital asset strategy);
  • Counterparty exposures (including borrowing and financing arrangements); and
  • Trading and clearing mechanisms.

Other Amendments That Apply to All Form PF Filers

  • General Instructions. Form PF filers will be required to report separately each component fund of a master-feeder arrangement and parallel fund structure (rather than in the aggregate as permitted under the existing Form PF), other than a disregarded feeder fund (e.g., where a feeder fund invests all its assets in a single master fund, US treasury bills, and/or “cash and cash equivalents”). In addition, the amendments revise how filers will report private fund investments in other private funds, “trading vehicles” (a newly defined term), and other funds that are not private funds. For example, Form PF will now require an adviser to include the value of a reporting fund’s investments in other private funds when responding to questions on Form PF, including determining filing obligations and reporting thresholds (unless otherwise directed by the Form).
  • All Private Funds. Form PF filers reporting information about their private funds will report additional and/or new information regarding, for example: type of private fund; identifying information about master-feeder arrangements, internal and external private funds, and parallel fund structures; withdrawal/redemption rights; reporting of gross and net asset values; inflows/outflows; base currency; borrowings and types of creditors; fair value hierarchy; beneficial ownership; and fund performance.

Final Thoughts

With the recent and significant regulatory spotlight on investment advisers to private funds and private funds themselves, we encourage advisers to consider the interrelationships between new data reporting requirements on Form PF and the myriad of new regulations and disclosure obligations being imposed on investment advisers more generally (including private fund advisers).

The effective date and compliance date for new final amendments to Form PF is 12 months following the date of publication in the Federal Register.

Robert Bourret also contributed to this article.

©2024 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

by: Adam Bolter of Katten 

For more SEC and CFTC news, visit the NLR Securities & SEC section.

As Three Recent Settlements Demonstrate, Whistleblowers Are the Key to Enforcement of Section 301 Tariffs

The Section 301 tariffs on Chinese-made goods—at the time, known as the Trump Tariffs, although President Biden has embraced them as well—were put in place in 2018. Only recently, more than five years later, have enforcement efforts begun to show up publicly. And, as is often the case, whistleblowers are the tip of the enforcement spear. In particular, over the course of two weeks at the end of 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced settlements of three qui tam cases, brought under the False Claims Act, that alleged evasion of Section 301 tariffs. These are the first such settlements to be made public, but likely signal the beginning of a wave of settlements or litigation in the coming years.

Starting in July of 2018, and pursuant to Title III of the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 301 through 310, 19 U.S.C. §§ 2411-2420), titled “Relief from Unfair Trade Practices,” and often collectively referred to as “Section 301,” the United States imposed additional tariffs on a wide range of products manufactured in China. The Section 301 tariffs were rolled out in tranches, but they fairly quickly covered a majority of all Chinese-made products imported into the United States. The Section 301 tariffs imposed an additional 25% customs duty on those products.

As is always the case when high tariffs are imposed on imported goods, the Section 301 tariffs were met with a mix of responses by importers. In some cases, importers simply paid the additional 25% duties. In some cases, the importers found new sources, outside of China, for the products they wished to import. And in many cases, the importers started cheating—evading the tariffs either by lying to Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) about what was being imported, or engaging to transshipping schemes to make it appear that the products were actually made in some country other than China.

Evasion of customs duties violates the False Claims Act, a federal law that, among other things, outlaws the making of false statements to avoid payment of money owed to the government. Evasion of customs duties will almost always involve such false statements because when goods are imported into the United States, the importer must provide CBP with a completed form, called an Entry Summary (also known as a Form 7501), in which the importer provides information about the nature, quantity, value, and country-of-origin of the goods being imported. To avoid or reduce the payment of duties, the importer will almost always lie on the Entry Summary about one or more of those, thus exposing the importer to liability under the False Claims Act.

The False Claims Act has a qui tam provision, which means that a private person or company may bring a lawsuit in the name of the government against the importer that has evaded payment of duties. If the qui tam lawsuit is successful, most of the money goes to the government. But the person or company that brought the lawsuit typically referred to as a whistleblower or, more technically, as the “relator”—gets an award that is between 15% and 30% of the amount recovered for the government.

When a qui tam case is first filed, it is put “under seal” by the court, meaning that it is secret and not available to the public. The case stays under seal, often for multiple years, as DOJ investigates the claims made in the case. But once DOJ decides to pursue a case, the seal is lifted, and the case becomes public. Often, this happens almost simultaneously with the announcement of a settlement of the case.

That is what happened with three cases that became public in late 2023. The first announcement came on November 29, 2023, when the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia announced a $1.9 million settlement in a case captioned United States ex rel Chinapacificarbide Inc. v. King Kong Tools, LLC. In that case, the whistleblower that had brought the qui tam lawsuit was a competitor company which alleged that King Kong Tools was manufacturing cutting tools in a factory in China, shipping them to Germany, and then importing them from Germany into the United States, claiming falsely that the tools were made in Germany. The whistleblowing company received an award of $286,861.

The second such announcement came on December 5, 2023, when the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas announced a $2.5 million settlement in a case captioned United States ex rel. Reznicek et al. v. Dallco Marketing, Inc. In that case, the whistleblowers were two individuals who alleged that the defendants evaded the Section 301 tariffs by underreporting the value of the products they were importing from China into the United States. The whistleblowers received an award of $500,000.

The third such announcement case on December 13, 2023, when the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Texas announced a settlement of $798,334 in a case captioned United States ex rel. Edwards v. Homestar North America LLC. Like the Dallco Marketing case, the Homestar case was also brought by an individual who alleged that the importer had lied to the government about the value of the goods being imported from China into the United States, in order to avoid payment of Section 301 tariffs. The whistleblower received an award of $151,683.

Accordingly, over the course of just two weeks in late 2023, three Section 301 settlements were publicly announced in quick succession. And notably, all three were whistleblower qui tam cases. This demonstrates the key role that whistleblowers play in the enforcement of customs tariffs and duties. No doubt, many other such cases remain under seal, and will start to become public as DOJ concludes its investigations. And because the Section 301 tariffs remain in place to this day, additional qui tam cases will almost certainly continue to be brought by both individual whistleblowers and competing companies seeking to level the playing field. Accordingly, these three settlements are likely just the early signs of a wave of Section 301 cases that will crest in the coming years.

© 2024 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP
For more news on Whistleblowers and Section 301 Tariffs, visit the NLR Antitrust & Trade Regulation section.

G7 Sanctions Enforcement Coordination Mechanism and Centralized EU Sanctions Watchdog Proposed

On Feb. 20, 2023, Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Wopke Hoekstra gave a speech titled “Building a secure European future” at the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium where he made a plea to “(…) sail to the next horizon where sanctions are concerned.” The Dutch Foreign Minister said European Union (EU) “(…) sanctions are hurting the Russians like hell (…)” but at the same time the measures “(…) are being evaded on a massive scale.” Hoekstra believes this is in part because the EU has too little capacity to analyze, coordinate, and promote the sanctions. However, arguably, there is also a lack of capacity at the EU Member-State level to enforce sanctions.

Against this background the Dutch Foreign Minister proposed to set up a sanctions headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, i.e., a novel watchdog or body to tackle the circumvention of EU sanctions. Such a body might represent the nearest EU equivalent to the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). OFAC both implements and enforces U.S. economic sanctions (issuing regulations, licenses, and directives, as well as enforcing through issuing administrative subpoenas, civil and administrative monetary penalties, and making criminal referrals to the U.S. Department of Justice). In Hoekstra’s words:

“A place where [EU] Member States can pool information and resources on effectiveness and evasion. Where we do much more to fight circumvention by third countries. This new HQ would establish a watch list of sectors and trade flows with a high circumvention risk. Companies will be obliged to include end-use clauses in their contracts, so that their products don’t end up in the Russian war machine. And the EU should bring down the full force of its collective economic strength and criminal justice systems on those who assist in sanctions evasion. By naming, shaming, sanctioning, and prosecuting them.”

The Dutch Foreign Minister’s proposal – which is also set out in a separate non-paper – apparently is backed and supported by some 10 or so EU Member States, including Germany, France, Italy, and Spain.

Additionally, on Feb. 23, 2023, the press reported the international Group of Seven (G7) is set to create a new tool to coordinate their enforcement of existing sanctions against the Russian Federation (Russia). The aim of the tool, tentatively called the Enforcement Coordination Mechanism, would be to bolster information-sharing and other enforcement actions.

Background

Like other Members of the G7, the EU has adopted throughout 2022 many economic and other sanctions to target Russia’s economy and thwart its ability to continue with its aggression against Ukraine. Nevertheless, currently EU Member States have different definitions of what constitutes a breach of EU sanctions, and what penalties must be applied in case of a breach. This could lead to different degrees of enforcement and risk circumvention of EU sanctions.

As we have reported previously, on Nov. 28, 2022, the Council of the EU adopted a decision to add the violation of restrictive measures to the list of so-called “EU crimes” set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, which would uniformly criminalize sanctions violations across EU Member States. This proposal still needs the backing of EU Member States, which have traditionally been cautious about reforms that require amendments to their national criminal laws.

Next steps

The decision on when and how to enforce EU sanctions currently lies with individual EU Member States, who also decide on the introduction of the EU’s restrictive measures by unanimity. As such, the Dutch Foreign Minister’s proposal requires the backing and support of more EU Member States. If adopted, the new proposed body could send cases directly to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), assuming the separate “EU crimes” legislative piece was also adopted.

Notably, the Dutch Foreign Minister’s proposal appears to suggest a stronger targeting of third countries, which are not aligned with the EU’s sanctions against Russia or help in their circumvention (e.g., Turkey, China, etc.).

Whether or not an EU sanctions oversight body is established, the Dutch proposal signals the current appetite for enhanced multilateral coordination on economic sanctions implementation and tougher, more consistent enforcement of economic sanctions violations. The G7’s proposed Enforcement Coordination Mechanism points in the same direction.

©2023 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

FDA Finalizes FSVP Guidance for Importers of Human and Animal Food

On January 10, the FDA issued a final guidance for the Foreign Supplier Verification Programs (FSVP) for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals. As our readers know, under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), FSVP requires that importers verify that the food which they import provides the same level of public health protection as the preventive controls or produce safety regulations (as appropriate) in the U.S. and to ensure that supplier’s food is not adulterated and is not misbranded with respect to allergen labeling.

The guidance is intended to assist importers in developing and implementing FSVP records, and following FSVP requirements for each food they import. The guidance includes recommendations on the requirements to analyze the hazards in food; how to evaluate a potential foreign supplier’s performance and the risk posed by the food; ways to determine and conduct appropriate foreign supplier verification activities; and how importers of dietary supplements or very small importers can meet modified FSVP requirements.

The guidance finalizes a 2018 draft guidance, and addresses comments received regarding what food the FSVP regulation applies to, what information must be included in the FSVP, and who must develop and perform the FSVP activities.

For more Biotech, Food, and Drug Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023 Keller and Heckman LLP

EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation Enters Into Force In 2023

On December 23, 2022, Regulation (EU) 2022/2560 of December 14, 2022 on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market (FSR) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The FSR introduces a new regulatory hurdle for M&A transactions in the European Union (EU), in addition to merger control and foreign direct investment screening. The FSR’s impact cannot be overstated as it introduces two mandatory pre-closing filing regimes and it gives the Commission wide-reaching ex officio investigative and intervention powers. Soon, the Commission will also launch a public consultation on a draft implementing regulation that should further detail and clarify a number of concepts and requirements of the FSR.

The bulk of the FSR will apply as of July 12, 2023. Importantly, the notification requirements for M&A transactions and public procurement procedures will apply as of October 12, 2023.

We highlight the key principles of the FSR below and provide guidance to start preparing for the application of the FSR. We refer to our On The Subject article ‘EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation to Impact EU and Cross-Border M&A Antitrust Review Starting in 2023’ of August 2, 2022 for a more detailed discussion of the then draft FSR. We also refer to our December 8, 2022 webinar on the FSR. Given the importance of the FSR, we will continue to report any future developments.

IN DEPTH

FSR in a Nutshell

The FSR tackles ‘foreign subsidies’ granted by non-EU governments to companies active in the EU and which ‘distort the internal market’.

  • First, a ‘foreign subsidy’ will be considered to exist where a direct or indirect financial contribution from a non-EU country or an entity whose actions can be attributed to a non-EU country (public entities or private entities) confers a benefit on an undertaking engaging in an economic activity in the EU internal market, and where that benefit is not generally available under normal market conditions but is, instead, limited, in law or in fact, to assisting one or more undertakings or industries. A ‘financial contribution’ covers a broad spectrum and encompasses, amongst others, positive benefits such as the transfer of funds or liabilities, the foregoing of revenue otherwise due (e.g., tax breaks, the grant of exclusive rights below market conditions, or the provision or purchase of goods or services).

  • Second, a ‘distortion in the internal market’ will be considered to exist in case of a foreign subsidy which is liable to improve the competitive position of an undertaking and which actually or potentially negatively affects competition in the EU internal market. The Regulation provides some guidance on when a foreign subsidy typically would not be a cause for concern:
    – A subsidy that does not exceed EUR 200,000 per third country over any consecutive period of three years is considered de minimis and therefore not distortive;
    – A foreign subsidy that does not exceed EUR 4 million per undertaking over any consecutive period of three years is unlikely to cause distortions; and
    – A foreign subsidy aimed at making good/recovering from the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences may be considered not to be distortive.

The FSR looks at ‘undertakings’, as is the case for merger control. Therefore, the Commission will not look merely at the legal entity concerned, but at the entire corporate group to which the entity belongs in order to calculate the total amount of foreign financial contributions granted to the undertaking. Even companies headquartered in the EU that have entities outside of the EU that have received foreign financial contributions are covered by the FSR.

The FSR introduces three tools for the European Commission (Commission): (i) a notification requirement for certain M&A transactions, (ii) a notification requirement for certain public procurement procedures (PPP) and (iii) investigations on a case by case basis.

Notification Requirement for Certain M&A Transactions

M&A transactions (or “concentrations”) involving a buyer and/or a target that has received a foreign financial contribution shall be notifiable if they meet the following cumulative conditions:

  • At least one of the merging undertakings, the acquired undertaking (target, not buyer) or the joint venture is established in the EU and has an EU turnover of at least EUR 500 million, AND

  • The combined aggregate financial contributions provided to the undertakings concerned in the three financial years (combined) prior to notification amounts to more than EUR 50 million.

M&A transactions that meet these criteria will need to be notified and approved by the Commission prior to implementation. During its review, the Commission will determine whether the foreign financial contributions received constitute foreign subsidies in the sense of the FSR and whether these foreign subsidies actually or potentially distort or negatively affect competition in the EU internal market. The Commission likely will consider certain indicators including the amount and nature of the foreign subsidy, the purpose and conditions attached to the foreign subsidy as well as its use in the EU internal market. For example, in a case of an acquisition, if a foreign subsidy covers a substantial part of the purchase price of the target, the Commission may consider it likely to be distortive.

Notification Requirement for Certain Public Procurement Procedures

A notifiable foreign financial contribution in the context of PPP shall be deemed to arise where the following cumulative conditions are met:

  • The estimated value of the public procurement or framework agreement net of VAT amounts to at least EUR 250 million, AND

  • The economic operator was granted aggregate foreign financial contributions in the three financial years prior to notification of at least EUR 4 million from a non-EU country.

Where the procurement is divided into lots, the value of the lot or the aggregate value of all lots for which the undertaking bids for must, in addition to the two criteria set out above, also amount to at least EUR 125 million.

Through this procedure, the Commission will ensure that companies that have received non-EU country subsidies do not submit unduly advantageous bids in public procurement procedures.

During the Commission’s review, all procedural steps may continue except for the award of the contract.

Even if the thresholds are not met, the Regulation requires undertakings to provide to the contracting authority in a declaration attached to the tender a list of all foreign financial contributions received in the last three financial years and to confirm that these are not notifiable, which the contracting authority will subsequently send to the Commission.

Investigations on a Case-by-case Basis

The Commission may on its own initiative investigate potentially distortive foreign subsidies (e.g. following a complaint). These investigations are not limited to M&A transactions or PPP. However, on the basis of this power, the Commission may investigate M&A transactions and awarded contracts under PPP which do not fall within the scope of the notification requirements set out above.

If the Commission carries out an ex-officio review, its analysis will be structured in two phases: a preliminary examination and an in-depth investigation. Although these phases have no time limits, the Commission will endeavor to take a decision within 18 months of the start of the in-depth investigation.

HOW TO PREPARE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE FSR

Application of the FSR – Timetable

As mentioned above, the FSR will apply as of July 12, 2023. The FSR shall apply to foreign subsidies granted in the five years prior to July 12, 2023 where such foreign subsidies create effects at present, i.e., they distort the internal market after July 12, 2023. By way of derogation, the FSR shall apply to foreign financial contributions granted in the 3 years prior to July 12, 2023 where such foreign financial contributions were granted to an undertaking notifying a concentration or notifying a PPP pursuant to the FSR.

The FSR shall not apply to concentrations for which the agreement was signed before July 12, 2023. The FSR shall also not apply to public procurement contracts that have been awarded or procedures initiated before July 12, 2023.

In general, the FSR shall apply from July 12, 2023 while the notification obligations for M&A transactions and PPP shall only apply from October 12, 2023. However, it is advisable to start preparing immediately for the application of the FSR, given the substantial scope of the regulation.

Actions to Take Now

Businesses which conduct activities in the EU, should put in place a system to monitor and quantify foreign financial contributions received since at least July 2020 – to cover the three-year review – and, preferably, July 2018. In particular, attention should be paid to positive benefits and reliefs from certain costs normally due by the company. External counsel can assist in determining whether these foreign financial contributions constitute a ‘foreign subsidy’.

As soon as a company decides to engage in an M&A or PPP in the EU, the company should map all relevant foreign financial contributions for the relevant time period to check whether the relevant notification thresholds are met. Subsequently companies must carefully consider whether any such financial contribution constitutes a foreign subsidy and, if so, whether such foreign subsidy may have a distortive effect. It is also advisable to determine whether there any positive effects relating to the subsidy that could be invoked. Companies should ensure that the preparation above is ably assisted by external counsel.

In particular with regard to M&A transactions, companies should carry out an FSR analysis in addition to merger control and foreign direct investment reviews. Even at the stage of due diligence, it would already be advisable to check whether the target has received any foreign financial contributions. If the transaction might eventually trigger a notification to the Commission, the M&A agreement should provide for Commission approval in the closing conditions. When acting as a bidder for a target that meets the EU turnover threshold, your bid will be much better viewed when accompanied with clear assurances that no FSR filing is required or, alternatively, that a filing may be required but that the foreign subsidies received are not distortive of competition.

© 2023 McDermott Will & Emery
For more Antitrust Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

FTC Starts Long-Awaited Green Guides Review

  • On December 14, 2022, at an open meeting of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”), FTC commissioners voted unanimously to publish a Notice in the Federal Register announcing a Request for Public Comments on potential amendments to the Commission’s Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (“Green Guides” or “Guides”).
  • The FTC solicits comments on the ongoing need for the Guides and on specific claims addressed in the Guides, including “recyclable,” “recycled content,” “degradable,” “compostable,” and more. It also asks if it should initiate a rulemaking process and address claims it declined to consider during the last review, such as “organic” and “sustainable.”
  • Importantly, given the growth in some state laws that purport to restrict claims, the FTC asks for input on whether the Guides conflict with federal or state laws. This proceeding is expected to garner significant input.
  • Once the Notice is published in the Federal Register (which the FTC anticipates will be in mid-January 2023), interested stakeholders will have 60 days from the date of the Notice to submit comments to the FTC, unless an extension is granted.
  • For more information about the FTC Notice, please read our report here.

© 2022 Keller and Heckman LLP

For more Energy and Environmental Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Exporting U.S. Antitrust Law: Are We Really Ready for NOPEC?

The year is 1979. Inflation and lines at the gas pumps caused by a revolution in Iran have stunned Americans. Driven to action, the International Association of Machinists (IAM) files suit in the Central District of California against OPEC and its 14 member countries for participating in a cartel that controls the worldwide price of oil. None of the defendants made any kind of appearance before the court. Nonetheless, the union lost, and its case was dismissed.

Under the Constitution, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. A district court has no power to decide a case over which it has no subject matter jurisdiction. The requirement cannot be waived or avoided; a court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction has no legal authority to entertain the matter. A federal statute known as the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act of 1976 (FSIA) limits the court’s jurisdiction in cases involving foreign sovereigns and, subject to a few specific exceptions, grants foreign states immunity from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. The court in IAM v. OPEC raised the FSIA on its own (there being no defendants present) and, finding the OPEC states immune (OPEC itself could not be served), dismissed the case. Thusly did the IAM lose its antitrust case against defendants who never even showed up in court.

The judiciary has resisted the innumerable attempts since 1979 to hold the OPEC cartel accountable for violating U.S. antitrust laws, even though the court’s IAM decision has proven erroneous. Acts by a sovereign “based upon a commercial activity” in the U.S., or affecting U.S. commerce, do not enjoy immunity under FSIA. Although the district court in IAM didn’t think so, the Ninth Circuit on appeal made clear that pricing of oil on world markets is indeed commercial activity that affects the U.S. economy and, therefore, not entitled to sovereign immunity. But the Appeals Court nonetheless sidestepped the case, taking refuge in the judge-made Act-of-State doctrine. The doctrine is prudential, as opposed to jurisdictional, and amounts to a voluntary renunciation of jurisdiction by a court when its decision could interfere with the conduct of foreign policy by the executive branch. Indeed, it is easy to see how a suit against the members of OPEC for price fixing might intrude into a sensitive foreign policy area.

In the four decades since IAM, these considerations have obstructed U.S. courts from holding OPEC accountable for a cartel formed for the purpose of and with the effect of stabilizing the price of a commodity in interstate or foreign commerce, which is illegal per se. As recently as 2010, the Obama administration urged the Fifth Circuit to dismiss an antitrust suit brought by private plaintiffs on Act-of-State grounds, it being up to the executive branch and not the courts to conduct foreign policy and protect national security interests.

Since 2000, when the first No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act was introduced in the House, the same legislation has been introduced no less than four times. NOPEC came closest to passage in 2007, when different versions of the bill passed the House and the Senate but were not reconciled. The House and Senate judiciary committees have now both approved the bill, and the latest version is on the Senate’s legislative calendar. Congress could act quickly if there is bipartisan support, otherwise it will take several months and require reintroduction in 2023.

NOPEC consists of three operative parts.

  • First, it would amend the Sherman Antitrust Act by adding a new Section 7(a) that explicitly makes it illegal for any foreign state to act collectively with others to limit production, fix prices, or otherwise restrain trade with respect to oil, natural gas, or other petroleum products. Judicial enforcement and a remedy would be available only to the Department of Justice, so the bill does not create a private right of action.

  • Second, it would amend FSIA to explicitly grant jurisdiction to U.S. court against foreign sovereigns to the extent they are engaged in a violation of the new Section 7(a).

  • Third, the legislation clarifies that the Act-of-State doctrine does not prevent U.S. courts from deciding antitrust cases against sovereigns alleged to have violated the new Section 7(a).

Calls for taking a harder line against OPEC are growing stronger in light of recent actions taken by the cartel. In May, for example, Saudi Arabia and 10 other OPEC members voted to slash oil production – resulting in high gas prices – as the U.S. and other nations imposed embargoes on Russian oil. OPEC’s production cuts provided Russia with a substantial lifeline in its increasingly difficult, costly, and prolonged invasion of Ukraine.

The Senate bill is sponsored by ​​Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley and cosponsors Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) Mike Lee (R-UT), and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who argue that OPEC’s price-fixing goes directly against the idea of fair and open markets, with current laws leaving the U.S. government “powerless” over OPEC. But are we really ready for NOPEC?

The concern over interference with foreign policy is far from trivial.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) recently sent a letter to Congress opposing the NOPEC bill, stating it would harm U.S. military, diplomatic, and business relations. API President and CEO Mike Sommers warned that while NOPEC is a noble endeavor designed to protect consumers, it would open the U.S. up to reciprocal lawsuits by foreign entities, writing that this could devastate certain political relations and trigger retaliation from OPEC countries. Other NOPEC critics say OPEC countries may limit other business dealings with the U.S., including lucrative arms deals or by pulling in their investments, as Saudi Arabia threatened to do in 2007, when the Deputy Saudi Oil Minister said the country would pull out of a multi-billion Texas oil refinery project unless the DOJ filed a statement of interest urging dismissal of an antitrust case then pending in the U.S. courts. In 2019, Saudi Arabia and OPEC threatened to start selling their oil in currencies other than the dollar, which would weaken the dollar’s position as the global vehicle currency.

For these reasons, it’s not clear what the White House would do if NOPEC passes. The Biden administration’s view of the measure seems to have shifted a bit, but it hasn’t come out strongly one way or the other. This is hardly surprising given the delicate and complex nature of the issue, the ongoing impact of Russia’s war on Ukraine, and the great importance voters place on the price of gas. Then-Press Secretary Jen Psaki said on May 5, 2022, that the “potential implications and unintended consequences of this legislation require further study and deliberation.” More recently, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Brian Deese, President Biden’s Director of the National Economic Council, said that nothing is off of the table – that the administration is assessing the situation and inviting recommendations. On Oct. 5 the Department of Energy said it would release another 10 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In making that announcement, Sullivan and Deese said the administration will consult with Congress on “additional tools and authorities to reduce OPEC’s control over energy prices.” They also reiterated the importance of investing in clean American-made energy to reduce reliance on foreign fossil fuels.

OPEC has such tremendous sway over U.S. gas prices and national security it is no wonder Congress continues to try to do something to free U.S. from OPEC’s whims and hold it accountable for going against the ideals of free markets. But whether NOPEC is the right approach remains an open question.

The antitrust laws represent a national ideological perspective on the most beneficial way to organize an economy. Policy differences between nations are supposed to occur in the diplomatic arena, not in the courts of one country or another. And if OPEC or its members lose an antitrust case in a U.S. court, how will the court enforce its judgment?

Article By Jonathan Rubin of MoginRubin

For more antitrust and trade regulation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© MoginRubin LLP

USTR Seeks Comments on Section 301 Tariffs on Chinese Goods; Portal Opens Nov. 15

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced Oct. 17 that starting Nov. 15, it will begin soliciting comments on the effectiveness of Section 301 tariffs the Trump administration placed on Chinese goods. The notice and request for comments relate to USTR’s ongoing four-year statutory review of the Section 301 investigation of China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation.

In the Federal Registrar Notice, USTR said it is seeking “public comments on the effectiveness of the actions in achieving the objectives of the investigation, other actions that could be taken, and the effects of such actions on the United States economy, including consumers.”

The USTR is specifically interested in comments on the following:

  • The effectiveness of the actions in obtaining the elimination of China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation.
  • The effectiveness of the actions in counteracting China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation.
  • Other actions or modifications that would be more effective in obtaining the elimination of or in counteracting China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation.
  • The effects of the actions on the U.S. economy, including on U.S. consumers.
  • The effects of the actions on domestic manufacturing, including in terms of capital investments, domestic capacity and production levels, industry concentrations, and profits.
  • The effects of the actions on U.S. technology, including in terms of U.S. technological leadership and U.S. technological development.
  • The effects of the actions on U.S. workers, including with respect to employment and wages.
  • The effects of the actions on U.S. small businesses.
  • The effects of the actions on U.S. supply chain resilience.
  • The effects of the actions on the goals of U.S. critical supply chains.
  • Whether the actions have resulted in higher additional duties on inputs used for additional manufacturing in the United States than the additional duties on particular downstream product(s) or finished good(s) incorporating those inputs.

The continuing assessment of these additional duties has been criticized by some business groups and lawmakers who believe they have hurt both U.S. businesses and U.S. consumers but have not checked China’s behavior. They also have called for the reinstatement of previously issued exclusions and for a new, robust tariff exclusion process. Some labor and civil society groups, however, want the tariffs to remain in place. The fate of these tariffs is closely tied to the Biden administration’s ongoing review and the overall U.S.–China trade relationship. The controversial tariff program that covers upwards of $300 billion worth of imports from China has sparked lawsuits from more than 3,500 importers.

The comment period begins on Nov. 15 and extends until Jan. 17. USTR said it will post specific questions on its website Nov. 1 before the portal opens.

Article By Laura Siegel Rabinowitz, Donald S. Stein, and Madeline Orlando of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more trade regulation news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.