International Trade Bulletin - Volume 1, Issue 4
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.01.06
Inside this issue:
- CHINA IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- Intellectual Property: The U.S. and Japan recently announced a joint initiative to strengthen the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) in China and other third countries
- Market Access: The World Trade Organization completed its first Trade Policy Review report of China which concludes that, although China has achieved success in its trade and investment reforms, it still faces challenges
- EUROPE IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- Customs: The recent EU WTO "victory" over the U.S. on customs practices in Europe may seem like a blow to businesses facing customs clearance problems in the EU
- Counterfeit: The EU is to introduce harmonized criminal sanctions and heavy fines for infringements of intellectual property rights throughout the EU
- BILATERAL TRADE: Cross Lander's Investment in Romanian Auto Company Hits Rocky Terrain
- INVESTMENT: Representative Edward Markey, member of the House Homeland Security Committee, announces his intention to introduce an amendment to the Safe Ports Bill requiring inspection of all cargo coming into U.S. seaports
- TRADE REMEDIES: Is Zeroing Finally Dead?
- EXPORT CONTROLS: Recent Cancelled Sale of U.S. Computer Technology to China Highlights Concern over New Planned “Catch-All” Export Rule
- TRADE RETALIATION: The EU imposes punitive duties on eight additional U.S. products as retaliation against the U.S. Byrd law
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
