In this issue
|
November 2008, vol. 46, no. 3
In this issue • Looking for a precedent for three-dimensional trademarks in Japan? Coke is it • Compliance with United States export controls • Section Council at British consulate • Report of status of selected civil liberties issues in Russia Pradip K. Sahu, Chair of the International and Immigration Law Section Council and Alpana P. Sahu provided us “Looking for a Precedent for Three Dimensional Trademarks in Japan? Coke is it”. Richard T. Ruzich and Daniel Cherry were two of the presenters at the International and Immigration Law Section Council continuing legal education program: Intellectual Property and International Law Issues in Representing a Globally Expanding Company. The program was held at the ISBA Chicago Regional Office on June 12, 2008. Included with this issue of The Globe is the handout material from their presentation. For more than 15 years, the International and Immigration Law Section Council has periodically held meetings at and/or with the staff of foreign consulates in Chicago. On May 9, 2008, the Section Council met at the British Consulate in Chicago. Excerpts from the minutes of that meeting are included. Natalia Evdokimova published “Report of Status of Selected Civil Liberties Issues in Russia” in the September 2008 issue of Human Rights, the newsletter of the Human Rights Section Council of the ISBA. Natalia gave her approval for us to reproduce that article in this issue of The Globe. And the final article in this third issue of The Globe for the current year refers to information available through the U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Commercial Service and their publications. Thank you to all our contributors. Lewis F. Matuszewich Matuszewich, Kelly & McKeever, LLP Telephone: (815) 459-3120 Email: lfmatuszewich@mkm-law.com On May 29, 2008, the Japan Intellectual Property High Court reversed the decision of the Japan Patent Office (the “JPO”) in which the JPO rejected the application for registration of one of the Coca-Cola Company’s unique bottle shapes as a three-dimensional trademark. The court ruled that the shape of the bottle could function as a mark, that it acquired distinctiveness under the trademark laws of Japan, and that it was registrable. In the late 1990s, Japan’s trademark laws were amended to allow for the registration of three-dimensional shapes. Such shapes must be distinctive enough to function as a trademark – an identifier of the source of the goods or services with which it is associated. If the shapes are not inherently distinctive, they must be shown to have acquired distinctiveness. In 2003, the Coca-Cola Company filed an application with the JPO to register the unique shape of some of its bottles as a three-dimensional trademark for use with certain beverages. In 2004, the application was rejected by the JPO on the grounds that the bottle itself was not distinctive enough to function as a trademark. If anything, the word marks “Coke” and/or “Coca-Cola” which were always used in association with the bottles were the unique identifying features of the packaging. The bottles were merely the containers of the beverages upon which the marks were affixed. As such, the shapes of the bottles did not function as trademarks. Coca-Cola filed a petition for a hearing to appeal the decision shortly after it was rendered by the JPO. However, in early 2007, the JPO denied Coca-Cola’s petition and affirmed its earlier rejection. The appeal to the High Court followed. On appeal, Coca-Cola provided numerous examples of why its uniquely shaped bottle was indeed distinctive. Some examples include the following: The uniquely shaped bottles were continuously sold in Japan since at least as early 1957; in some years over 2 billion of these bottles were sold in Japan; Coca-Cola spent approximately three billion yen (approximately 30 million Untied States dollars) in advertising these bottles as a brand in Japan; there were no other cola drinks sold in Japan in bottles with a similar shape; and Coca-Cola policed its bottle design mark by taking legal actions against competitors who attempted to introduce bottles with similar shapes in the marketplace in Japan. Coca-Cola also submitted survey evidence demonstrating the Japanese population as a whole recognized the uniquely shaped bottle without any markings affixed as its own unique packaging. Moreover, Coca-Cola produced evidence that the bottle had its own fan following and that there are even books written about the history and importance of the bottle’s design. Presented with this evidence, the High Court agreed with Coca-Cola that its bottle design was distinctive enough to function as a trademark and that it acquired distinctiveness as a unique identifier of Coca-Cola’s goods. This case is important because it is the first one in which a bottle design was recognized in Japan as being distinctive. Although the case ultimately turned on the facts related to acquired distinctiveness, the reasoning and types of evidence presented can be useful to those interested in trying to protect their non-traditional trademarks in Japan. It appears that factors such as long-standing use, market exclusivity, policing efforts, survey evidence and advertising of the non-traditional mark as itself being a brand will be well received as evidence of acquired distinctiveness. __________ THE SCENARIO: The Deal • Your Client enters into an agreement with the United States Government • Classified military information, classified technology, classified material • The terms of the Agreement require dealings with a foreign sovereign, overseas • Disclosure of classified information to the foreign entity is required CLIENT EXPECTATIONS: Laissez Faire • Freely disclose information to foreign entity • Get the job done • Ability to change course and terms of deal • Minimal oversight CLIENT EXPECTATIONS MEET FEDERAL LAW • Arms Export Control Act (AECA), 22 U.S.C. § 2751 • Export Administration Act of 1979, 50 U.S.C. Appendix 2401-2420 • The Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 2121, 2153, 2164 • The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 • 10 U.S.C. 130 (SECDEF’s power to withhold info, DoD Directive 5230.25) CLIENT EXPECTATIONS MEET EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND OTHER DIRECTIVES • E.O. 12958 – Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret • E.O. 12333, DCID 6/6 and 6/7 • National Security Decision Memorandum 119 (NSDM 119) • International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR 120-130 ITAR - The Breakdown • 1. Defense Articles – unclassified (part 123) and classified (part 125) • 2. Technical Data – classified and unclassified • Requisite licenses PATENT APPLICATIONS • 35 U.S.C. § 181 et seq. “Secrecy of Certain Inventions and Filing Applications in Foreign Countries” • 35 U.S.C. § 184 • Filing and prosecuting of patent applications in foreign countries • Department of State license required INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS • Agreement with one or more foreign governments • Signed or agreed to by USG officials • Signifies intention of parties to be bound by international law • Usually embodied in an MOA and MOU THE GC/RETAINED COUNSEL: THE ESSENTIALS • 22 U.S.C. 2767 (Authority of the President to Enter into Cooperative Projects with Friendly Foreign Countries) • 10 U.S.C. 2350a (Cooperative Research and Development Projects: Allied Countries) • DoD Directive 5530.3 DoD DIRECTIVE 5530.3 • Must for understanding international agreements • Authorizes various DoD officials to approve negotiations • Prescribes the “HOW TOs” of disclosure of classified information and technology sharing with foreign entities • Requires the coordination of security provisions for agreements likely involving the release of Classified Military Information (CMI) • Must be consulted before making any commitment to foreign government/int’l organization. REVIEWING INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS • Competent review is necessary because of CMI disclosure potential • Must understand all definitions, abbreviations, objectives, management, contractual provisions on controlling classified information • Visits by foreign entities to the contractor sites-security compliance. SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS • Should be made part of any agreement • Procedures to control foreign representatives • Contractor facilities • Technology Control plan in accordance with ITAR CONCLUDING AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT • Draft examined to ensure compliance • Tech Assessment/Control Plan must be updated to reflect any changes brought about by negotiations • A DDL (Delegation of Disclosure Letter) must be in place • Preparation of the PSI (Program Security Instruction) CONTRACTOR OPERATIONS ABROAD • Contractor Access to Classified Information • Nat’l Industrial Security Program Operating Manual • Storage, Custody, or Control of Classified Information • Transmission of Classified Information PROTECTING YOUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY • Coproduction • Co-licensing • Co-ownership? Disclosure? • Who gets your data? • Allies more interested producing/assembling U.S. developed weapons • Cooperation agreement may allow unfettered access by foreign entity to IP • Tech and know-how at risk • Coproduction implemented through international agreement and/or direct commercial agreements. __________ For many years, the International and Immigration Law Section Council of the ISBA has held some of their meetings at foreign consulates and have had representatives of the foreign consulates participate in other meetings and programs. The following are excerpts from the Minutes prepared by Cindy Buys, then Secretary and now Vice-Chair of the International and Immigration Law Section Council of the meeting on May 9, 2008 at the British Consulate. Old Business: Consular Notification: Lew briefly explained Proposed Rule 404 for the benefit of the British consular staff. Scott Pollock summarized the meeting at the Mexican consulate on April 30, 2008 regarding consular notification issues for the benefit of those who did not attend (minutes of that meeting appeared in the August 2008 issue of The Globe). New Business: A. Presentations by Representatives of the British Consulate: Vice Consul Eileen Dunne began by introducing herself and explaining that she is in charge of looking after “distressed British nationals” in 13 states in the Midwest. She stated that her office provides a lawyers’ list to British nationals and offered to add to the list the names and contact information of the attorneys in attendance at the meeting. Vice Consul Dunne then explained in more detail the kinds of problems her office handles, e.g., lost passports, crime victims, psychiatric cases, and prisoners. She stated that 75 percent of her time is spent on prisoners. There are currently 65 British nationals in prison in the Midwest, some of whom are in immigration detention. She stated that one of the more well known prisoners is a man named Kenny Richey. He was on death row, but has been released and is now home in Scotland. She stated that the consulate gets very involved in death penalty cases because the British do not agree with the death penalty. Vice Consul Dunne further stated that she looks after issues relating to prisoners’ health and welfare. Her office does not get involved in prisoners’ legal issues, except in death penalty cases. Her office will help with allegations of abuse or lack of access to medicine, for example. Someone from her office used to visit prisoners three times—once within 24 hours of arrest, once after sentencing, and once every year. Now, her office generally visits just once after sentencing unless the British national is considered a “vulnerable” case, such as a minor. Her office also does crisis work, such as providing assistance after Hurricane Katrina. With respect to consular notification issues, Vice Consul Dunne stated that the UK has a bilateral agreement with the U.S. that makes consular notification mandatory. The consulate has coverage 24 hours a day, seven days a week. She does not believe they have many problems with lack of consular notification. However, in those cases where they later learn that they did not receive notice, they investigate and follow up by writing to the detaining authorities to complain. They often send a poster regarding consular notification and ask that the authorities post it. She does not know if authorities follow through as she does not receive responses to these complaints. When her office receives notice that a British national has been arrested or detained, they make sure the detainee knows his or her rights and has information about the U.S. legal system and they assist in notifying the family. She does not see a big distinction between Chicago and downstate or other states in terms of compliance with consular notification requirements. She is the only full-time employee in the consulate protection division. She has two part-time staff who work with her. Vice Consul Dunne stated that the British consulate has generally had good relations with the immigration authorities (both ICE and CBP) at O’Hare Airport. She said they generally receive consular notification at the time of the second interview. In response to a question about updating contact information, Vice Consul Dunne stated that if the British Consulate changed the phone number for the protection division, they would notify every major police department in the Midwestern states. She also stated that the switchboard can route calls to the consular protectorate division. With respect to notification from the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), she stated that she can only recall receiving notice once in her four years at the consulate. She suspects that there are more British children in DCFS custody about whom they do not receive notice, but also believes that the families are handling the matter. Stuart Percival, the Entry Clearance Manager, and Sheila O’Conner from the NY office, then provided information about the work of the visa section. He stated that his section has a staff of 11 persons and they process approximately 20,000 visa applications per year from persons of different nationalities who want to visit or transit through the UK. He discussed changes to the visa process, in particular, the addition of biometric checks which is being done in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. With respect to student visas, Mr. Percival stated that if a person wants to visit as a student for less than six months, no visa is needed. If the student wishes to engage in work, an internship, or to stay longer, a student visa is needed. Mr. Pervical explained that the UK is moving towards a points based system (PBS) which is a new system for managing migration to the UK. Points will be assigned based on various factors such as education and earning power and persons will be placed in one of five tiers. The first tier will be in place this summer in July 2008. There will still be a separate process for family-based immigration. Consul Brendan Doyle explained that UKTI is about four to five years old and promotes trade and investment. It is an offspring of the Commerce Department and the Foreign Ministry. It has a staff of 14 persons, each of whom is assigned to different states and industries. UKTI tries to help UK companies grow businesses into overseas markets (such as the U.S.), especially small and medium-sized businesses. UKTI also works to attract foreign investment into the UK. He stated that 30% of all U.S. investment in the European Union is in the UK; thus investment from the United States is very important to the UK. B. Draft CLE Program on Consular Notification: Cindy Buys distributed a draft of a CLE program on consular notification which is being proposed for the mid-year meeting in December. It is scheduled for that time to take advantage of the fact that the Illinois Judges’ Association (IJA) will be holding meetings at the same time and place. It must be submitted no later than July 15, but Lew suggested finalizing it by June 1, in part so we can promote the program and obtain co-sponsors at the annual meeting. There was some discussion regarding the content, including whether the program should include a presentation by one or more consular officers. Scott stated that Mexican Consul Ioana Navarette has expressed interest in addressing the ISBA members. __________ Chapter II of the Constitution of the Russian Federation adopted in 1993 grants the rights and liberties of the citizens of Russia.1 Article 15 of the Constitution2 proclaims supremacy of ratified international laws over domestic legislation and declares that international treaties and agreements of the Russian Federation, including such international human rights instruments as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and European Convention of Human Rights, are part of the Russian legislation and should be applied directly. Nevertheless the situation with human rights and freedoms in Russia is far from perfect. According to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other international human rights organizations, violations of human rights in the Russian Federation include racism, discrimination of members of ethnic minorities and religious groups, ban against political demonstrations, abuse of power in registration and operation of non-governmental organizations, violations of press freedoms (practicing censorship, closing of editorial offices, stopping broadcasting, acts of intimidation, etc), discriminatory immigration policy against certain ethnic groups, ban of the pro-lesbian-and-gay rights activities, and attempts to toughen control over blogs and Internet.3 The Federal Law of the Russian Federation No.54-FZ “On Meetings, Rallies, Demonstrations, Marches and Pickets” (2004)4 provides regulation of demonstrations and other public gatherings in Russia. If the assembly in public is expected to involve more than one participant, its organizers are obliged to notify executive or local self-government authorities of the upcoming event few days in advance in writing. However, the authorities have no right to prohibit an assembly or change its place unless it threatens the security of participants or is planned to take place in close proximity of cultural and historical monuments or near hazardous facilities, important railways, viaducts, pipelines, high voltage electric power lines, prisons, courts, presidential residences or in the border control zone. The local authorities cannot introduce additional limitations and restrictions on public events. Generally, the government respects freedom of assembly and right to gather in public but certain demonstrations, especially those proclaimed to be political or reform, are displaced, dispersed or simply banned. Authorities banned most of the Marches of the Discontented, which took place in 2006-2007 in Moscow, in Saint Petersburg, in Nizhny Novgorod, in Samara and in Chelyabinsk, or proposed to change their place. As protesters defied the bans, riot police beat or detained scores of opposition activists during the demonstrations, detaining or taking off trains and buses some expected participants in advance.5 In May 2006 gay rights activists were denied their applications to hold a gay pride parade in Moscow by Mayor of Moscow. On May 27, several dozen Russian lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender protestors, accompanied by Russian and foreign supporters, including members of the European and German parliaments, sought to hold two successive protest rallies after a court upheld Mayor’s ban on a march they planned for that day to commemorate the 13th anniversary of the decriminalization of homosexuality in Russia. According to Human Rights Watch, at both events hundreds of anti-gay protesters attacked the participants, while throwing projectiles and chanting homophobic slogans. Police intervened belatedly, failing to protect demonstrators, thus aggravating the violence.6 On May 27, 2007, a gay rights demonstration labeled by the Mayor of Moscow as “satanic” was held in Moscow again and for the second consecutive year degenerated into violent clashes with anti-gay extremists. Again the police failed to protect gay rights activists.7 During the G8 summit in St. Petersburg in July 2006, human rights activists claimed numerous alleged incidents of illegal action by law enforcement officials against protestors, including cases of police taking persons to police stations without explanation; and cases of persons prevented from traveling by bus or train to St. Petersburg for a “counter summit” organized by Russian non-governmental organizations.8 Article 28 of the Constitution of Russian Federation provides for freedom of religion and the equality of all religions before the law as well as the separation of church and state.9 The 1997 Law “On Freedom of Conscience and Associations”10 declares all religions equal before the law, prohibits government interference in religion, and establishes simple registration procedures for religious groups. The country is by law a secular state without a state religion. The preamble to the 1997 Law, however, acknowledges Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and other religions as constituting an inseparable part of the country’s historical heritage and also recognizes the “special contribution” of Orthodoxy to the country’s history and to the establishment and development of its spirituality and culture.11 Russia is a multi-ethnic country with a large majority of Russian Orthodox Christians (approximately 100 million citizens), high proportion of Muslims (about 20 million), and also with some representation of Jews, Catholics, and so on.12 The distinctive feature of religion in Russia is that the vast majority of Russian citizens even considering themselves Orthodox Christians or Muslims are inwardly religious and not regular churchgoers and therefore relations between the representatives of the different religious communities are generally harmonious. So religious matters are not a source of social tension or problems for the large majority of citizens, but there are some problems between majority and minority groups such as prejudices against non-Orthodox religions and so-called “nontraditional” religions including alternative Orthodox congregations, foreign missionaries, etc. While neither the Constitution nor the 1997 Law accords explicit privileges or advantages to the “traditional” religions, in practice the Russian Orthodox Church cooperates more closely with the Government than do other faiths. For instance, the Russian Orthodox Church has far greater access than other religious groups to public institutions such as schools, hospitals, prisons, the police, and the army. Also, the Russian Orthodox Church has special arrangements with government agencies to conduct religious education and to provide spiritual counseling. The federal Government does not require religious instruction in schools, but several regions offer a course on Orthodoxy in public schools, and a few regions have a mandatory class on the Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture. The course is offered as an elective in several other regions. In regions where the class is not mandatory, in practice students may be compelled to take it where schools do not provide alternatives. The Federal Ministry of Education officially warned against these lessons, and rejected continued publication and dissemination of a textbook that detailed Orthodox Christianity’s contribution to the country’s culture, with descriptions of some minority religions that members of those religions found objectionable.13 The 1997 Law gives officials the power to ban religious groups and thereby prohibit all of the activities of a religious community. In practice it concerns “sects” and “cults,” usually understood to include some nontraditional denominations and newer religious movements (the Salvation Army, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Church of Scientology, etc). Such nontraditional religious groups frequently have difficulties with registration (without it they cannot perform religious services and worships but they are allowed to hold meetings and seminars), in obtaining venues for worship, in acquiring land or permits to build houses of worship. After several decisions of the European Court of Human Rights overruled orders of regional authorities violating religion freedom rights,14 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation began often ruling against local authorities in similar cases. The most difficult situation nowadays is with Muslim communities in Ural and Caucasian regions. The Government commits serious violations of religious freedom against the Muslim population in these regions, justifying them as counter-terrorism measures. There are numerous cases of Muslims being prosecuted for extremism or terrorism even when they have no clear relation to such activities.15 During last few years, much of the government-critical media in the Russian Federation has been brought to heel. Major television stations have been taken over by the state, or by state-owned corporations like Gazprom. Reporters often resort to self-censorship fearing retribution by officials.16 Moreover, a few weeks ago the Head of the Federal Assembly, the nation’s highest legislative body, suggested the establishment of a establish new public organ consisting of representatives of executive and legislative bodies to control “moral and ethical content of TV-shows and movies.”17 Such organ would give authorities the right to control and forbid news and other TV-programs the contents of which are non-conformable to official government positions. Because of this, Internet sites such as Web logs, online newspapers, and chat rooms have emerged as a vibrant source of critical news and commentary in Russia. The Internet’s unfettered nature and people using it to challenge the government has long worried the Government; media outlets often use Web sites and blogs as their first source for news or information. Russians have quickly taken to using the Internet for sharing commentary, or even to organize political demonstrations or spontaneous protests called “flash mobs”. As a result, Russian lawmakers and authorities are increasingly discussing ways to tame the Internet. The Russian State Duma (the nation’s lower legislative body) is elaborating to the Mass Media Law18 that will extend to Internet editions.19 Amid other things, the amendments provide for mandatory registration of Internet sites with a daily audience of above 1,000. If the bill is ultimately passed, it will first affect the Internet blogs, forums, and chats, whose audience materially exceeds 1,000 and where Russian Internet users can get independent information, can communicate freely and discuss current political, economic and social situation in Russia and other countries. The particular concern of the Russian legislators is Clause 57 of the Law, which relieves mass media of any responsibility for the word-for-word republication of inadequate information. The growing concerns that authorities have begun to tighten control over the Internet are confirmed by the very recent charges against a blogger in Russia for posting harsh criticism of police on the Internet. The blogger posted a message on a Web forum where he criticized police in the wake of a raid on an opposition newspaper. He was convicted to one year suspended sentence and 300,000-ruble (U.S. $14,000) fine.20 Considering everything said above, the situation with human rights in the Russian Federation seems unsatisfactory and troubled, especially in the fields of religion, press, assembly freedoms and other civil liberties. Nevertheless, building a lawful state and civil society is a hard and long process and therefore, human-rights organizations should continue working to reform and improve the situation, in concert with reform efforts by the national government and local authorities. __________ 1. See <http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm> 2. <http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-02.htm> 3. See <http://hrw.org/englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/russia14838.htm>; <http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Homepage> 4. <www.consultant.ru> 5. See <http://hrw.org/englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/russia14838.htm> 6. See <http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=lgbt> 7. See <http://www.kommersant.ru/online.aspx?date=20080716> 8. See <http://www.kommersant.ru/online.aspx?month=200806> 9. <http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm> 10. <www.consultant.ru> 11. See <www.consultant.ru> 12. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Russia> 13. <http://www.kommersant.ru/rubric.aspx?NodesID=7> 14. <http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/search.asp?sessionid=11790842&skin=hudoc-en> 15. <http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=chechnya> 16. <http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/03/07/russia15458_txt.htm> 17. <http://www.kommersant.ru/daily.aspx?date=20080715> 18. <www.consultant.ru> 19. <http://www.kommersant.ru/daily.aspx?month=200804> 20. <http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/07/14/russia19346.htm> As mentioned in previous issues of The Globe, the U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Commercial Service in Chicago publishes USA Trade World Illinois. This is a free publication which continually updates information on various trade and custom issues. In the fall 2008 issue, they introduce Cindy Biggs, the new staff member in the Chicago office. They mention that Ms. Biggs joined the Commercial Service-Chicago group as an International Trade Specialist after serving as a Senior Commercial Officer at the U.S. Embassy in Bucharest, Romania from 2005-2008. In that position, she led a team of six staff persons that facilitated some 367 million dollars in U.S. exports during the 2008 fiscal year. She began her career with the Commercial Service in Monterey, Mexico, where she served as Vice Consul for Commercial Affairs from 2002-2004. Previously she worked for Kellogg and for ABC News in Venezuela, Brazil, and Mexico. She was raised in the Chicago area and in Michigan and is fluent in Spanish and Romanian. Her concentration will be working with exporters in the aviation, plastic and chemicals, general industrial equipment, machine tools and metal workings, and material handling equipment. She can reached at Cindy.biggs@mail.doc.gov or (312) 353-4453. Coincidental with Ms. Bigg’s arrival, USA Trade World Illinois also focused on Romania as “the best kept secret in the EU”. The article points out that Romania’s 22 million consumers represent the second largest market in Central Eastern Europe. As of 2007 Romania, a member of NATO, is able to market itself as part of the European Union. As such, Romania has all the privileges that come with inclusion in the economic group, including harmonized tariffs and the opportunity for U.S. firms to use Romania as a gateway throughout the European Union. According to USA Trade World Illinois, Romania’s location and highly skilled English speaking workforce has already attracted interest from 3M, Alcoa, Bunge, Cargill, Cisco, Citibank, Coca-Cola, Colgate, Palmolive, Delphi, Ernest & Young, FedEx, Ford, GE, Honeywell Garret, HP, IBM, Johnson Controls, Kodak, Kraft, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Motorola, Oracle, Proctor and Gamble, Solectron, Timken, UPS, Visa, and Xerox. A third item in the publication pointed out that “A Basic Guide to Exporting” will be published at this time, representing the tenth edition of the publication. The first edition was published in 1938 and is the only U.S. Government text currently in print that educates U.S. companies on how to enter overseas markets and work their way through the process involved in exporting. The most recent issue was in 1998. Since 1938, the Guide has been a resource that businesses can turn to for help on how to establish overseas markets for their products and services. The article emphasized that this is a comprehensive guide and has been completely revised and updated to provide nuts and bolts information on how to identify markets, finance exports, handling orders and shipments, and sources of low cost export counseling. A Basic Guide to Exporting will be available both through book retailers, as well as from the government printing office. To read sample chapters and obtain additional information, go to <http://export.gov/basicguide/>. More information concerning USA Trade World Illinois may be found at <www.buyusa.gov/illinois>. December Friday, 12/5/08 - Chicago, ISBA Regional Office Trial Practice and Advocacy – Getting it Right – Presented by the ISBA Bench and Bar Section Thursday, 12/11/08- Chicago, Sheraton Hotel ISBA Midyear Meeting CLE Fest • New Laws for 2008 and 2009 Presented by the ISBA Standing Committee on Legislation • HB 1509: Illinois’ New Right to Sue Law Presented by the ISBA Labor & Employment Law Section • What You Need to Know About Consular Notification Presented by the ISBA International and Immigration Law Section • Mini Seminar on Current Traffic Law Developments Presented by the ISBA Traffic Laws & Court Section Friday, 12/12/08- Chicago, Sheraton Hotel ISBA Midyear Meeting CLE Fest • Family Law Beyond Basics Presented by the ISBA Family Law Section • Criminal Law “Constant Change” Presented by the ISBA Criminal Justice Section • Update on Legal Developments for the General Practitioner Presented by the ISBA General Practice, Solo & Small Firm Section • Effectively and Ethically Managing Clients With Mental Health and Substance Abuse Problems Presented by the Standing Committee on Women & the Law, the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism and the Illinois Judges Association, Co-sponsored by the ISBA Standing Committee on Delivery of Legal Services • Tax Aspects of Personal Injury Litigation: What Every Tort Lawyer Needs to Know Before Settlement or Judgment Presented by the ISBA Federal Taxations Section, Co-Sponsored by the ISBA Tort Law Section and the ISBA Workers’ Compensation Section
Disclaimer: This newsletter is for subscribers' personal use only; redistribution is prohibited. Copyright Illinois State Bar Association. Statements or expressions of opinion appearing herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Association or Editors, and likewise the publication of any advertisement is not to be construed as an endorsement of the product or service offered unless it is specifically stated in the ad that there is such approval or endorsement.
|