International Trade Bulletin - Volume 1, Issue 1
Client Alert | 2 min read | 03.20.06
Inside this issue:
- CHINA IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- EUROPE IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- DUTY RECOVERY : Many importers and manufacturers pay unnecessary duty on imported merchandise, either directly or as a cost of procured materials
- BILATERAL TRADE: The proposed U.S. – Korea FTA will be the most commercially significant FTA the U.S. has negotiated since NAFTA
- FOREIGN INVESTMENTS: New Indian investment rules allow foreign retailers to set up majority-owned stores in India – a high-growth market eyed by foreign retailers for years
- AIR TRANSPORT: Controversial U.S. DOT proposal to attract investment in the U.S. Airlines draws fire from both sides of the pond rather than hope for Open Skies
- SANCTIONS: The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury has issued an interim final rule outlining a new set of enforcement procedures
- NAFTA: NAFTA provisions on “regional value content” (RVC) calculation causes serious problems for related parties
- DUTY SUSPENSION: The Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB) may be more relevant to your business than it sounds - at least if you are an importer of products that American factories do not produce domestically
- INTERNATIONAL IP PROTECTION: Elements of India’s new patent law which took effect in 2005 have prevented Novartis from obtaining a patent for its cancer drug “Gleevec”
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25
