High quality business and privacy legal counseling guides from Alexander Suliman, Stockholm: Ensure that you register your IP in overseas jurisdictions and review your IP portfolio to ensure it is up-to-date with registrations and expiration dates. While trademarks, designs and patents are protect through registration at the local and EU level, bear in mind that the duration of each right is different and that their use or licensing may be restricted by specific Member State legislation (i.e. employee creations). Also, review your current license agreements: while they generally cover the EU as a single licensing territory, the use of your IP may not be relevant in each Member State and you may want to reconsider a more local approach in order to facilitate their monitoring and mitigate challenges from third parties. An important component of any business’s IP strategy will be the protection of trade secrets. The EU Trade Secret Directive was intended to harmonise trade secret protection across the EU. In this guide we look at the picture as it currently stands in eight major jurisdictions. Read extra information on Alexander Suliman.
The reason why the European Commission was keen on allowing firms to voluntarily scan material, is that technology firms have already been working on ways to detect CSAM and solicitation for quite some time. Let’s start with a content scanning order on the server. At first sight, a case can be made that such an order should be considered to compromise the essence of the right to privacy under the Charter. The ECJ in Schrems I considered that legislation permitting the public authorities access on a generalised basis to the content of communications compromises the essence of the right to privacy under the Charter (par. 94). Content scanning on the server arguably is a form of “access on a generalised basis”, where it involves an analysis of all communications going through the server connected to a certain app, and forwarding any matches to a designated center. At the same time, the ECHR in Big Brother Watch was more forgiving when it comes to powers of bulk interception of communications, as long as these powers are surrounded with sufficient safeguards (par. 350). Thus, one important point to be explored further, is whether this signals a rift between the two bodies, or that the ECJ will chart its own route when it comes to bulk surveillance.
The European Commission, in a working document, identified cloud services as a “strategic dependency”, expressing concerns that the EU cloud market is led by a few large cloud providers headquartered outside the EU. In July, 2021, France, joined by Germany, Italy, and Spain, submitted a proposal to the ENISA-led working group aimed at generalizing French national requirements across the EU. (Germany has since reserved its position.) It proposed to add four new criteria for companies to qualify as eligible to offer ‘high’ level services, including immunity from foreign law and localization of cloud service operations and data within the EU. Although the EU-level cyber certification requirements currently are conceived as voluntary, they could be made mandatory as the result of the recently-agreed Directive on Measures for a High Common Level of Cybersecurity across the Union (NIS2 Directive).
Top rated IT, business legal counseling guides from Alexander Suliman, Stockholm: After the parties are comfortable with the mediator and can express their concerns, and they can express proposals knowing that everything you do in mediation is confidential and can’t be used in a court, I find this is the best alternative. Sometimes in cases that are in a divorce, the court will refer the parties to what we call in-house custody, parenting time mediation, and they do a great job, and sometimes that settles the custody and parenting time issues, but sometimes they need more than what the court can offer, and sometimes there’s just no court case. The parties aren’t in a divorce, or it’s a post-divorce issue, so these types of cases are a perfect fit for mediation and a perfect fit to avoid the emotional and financial toll of litigation. Discover extra details at Alexander Suliman, Sweden.
On 24 February 2022, the CJEU issued its first judgment on domestic workers. In case C-389/20, TGSS (Chômage des employés de maison), the CJEU held that the exclusion of this category of workers from access to social security benefits constitutes indirect discrimination on the ground of sex, since it affects almost exclusively women. Domestic workers have long constituted an invisible and rather underexplored category of workers within labour law scholarship and policy-making, which has only recently gained some attention in the wake of the adoption of the historic ILO Domestic Workers Convention No. 189 in 2011. Whereas a part of the scholarship has noticed that EU equality law could be used to challenge the long-standing exclusions of domestic workers from national labour law and social security system (see, notably, the contribution of Vera Pavlou, and the work of Nuria Ramos-Martin, Ana Munoz-Ruiz & Niels Jansen in the context of the PSH-Quality project), the issue has never reached the Court of Justice up to now.