Holland & Knight - China Practice Newsletter: May-June 2020 by Holland & Knight

Table of Contents CHINA PRACTICE NEWSLETTER ...........................................................................................................3 CFIUS PUBLISHES PROPOSED RULE ON NEW FILING FEES .............................................................4 CFIUS 公布了关于新申请费的拟议规则 .....................................................................................................7 U.S. INCOME TAX RESIDENCE AND THE CORONAVIRUS .................................................................10 美国所得税居民身份与冠状病毒...............................................................................................................14 LITIGATING TRADE SECRETS CASES IN CALIFORNIA ......................................................................17 加州商业秘密诉讼 ....................................................................................................................................20 FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS FRAUDULENT TRADEMARK APPLICATIONS .....................22 因应欺诈性商标申请的联邦立法...............................................................................................................25 ABOUT THIS NEWSLETTER ..................................................................................................................28 有关本期刊 ..............................................................................................................................................28 ABOUT THE AUTHORS..........................................................................................................................28 关于本期作者 ...........................................................................................................................................28

China Practice Newsletter Holland & Knight is a U.S.-based global law firm committed to provide high-quality legal services to our clients. We provide legal assistance to Chinese investors and companies doing business or making investments in the United States and Latin America. We also advise and assist multinational corporations and financial institutions, trade associations, private investors and other clients in their China-related activities. With more than 1,400 professionals in 28 offices, our lawyers and professionals are experienced in all of the interdisciplinary areas necessary to guide clients through the opportunities and challenges that arise throughout the business or investment life cycles. We assist Chinese clients and multinational clients in their China-related activities in areas such as international business, mergers and acquisitions, technology, healthcare, real estate, environmental law, private equity, venture capital, financial services, taxation, intellectual property, private wealth services, data privacy and cybersecurity, labor and employment, ESOPs, regulatory and government affairs, and dispute resolutions. We invite you to read our China Practice Newsletter, in which our authors discuss pertinent Sino-American topics. We also welcome you to discuss your thoughts on this issue with our authors listed within the document.

霍兰德奈特律师事务所是一家位于美国的全球性法律事务所，我们致力于向客户提供高质量的法律服务。我们向在美国及拉丁美洲进行商业活动或投资的中国投资人及公司提供他们所需的各类法律协助。我们也向跨国公司、金融机构、贸易机构、投资人及其他客户提供他们于其与中国相关活动中所需的咨询和协助。我们在 28 个办公室的 1400 多名对各领域有经验的律师及专业人员能够协助客户处理他们在经营或投资过程中所遇到的各种机会及挑战。我们向中国客户及从事与中国有关活动的跨国客户提供法律协助的领域包括国际商业、企业并购、科技法律、医疗法律、房地产、环保法律、私募基金、创投基金、金融法律服务、税务、知识产权、私人财富管理法律服务、信息隐私及网络安全、劳动及雇佣法律、员工持股计划、法令遵循及政府法规、及争议解决。我们邀请您阅读刊载我们各作者就与中美有关的各议题所作论述的 China Practice 期刊。我们也欢迎您向本期刊的各作者提供您对各相关议题的看法。

CFIUS Publishes Proposed Rule on New Filing Fees By Antonia I. Tzinova and Dariya V. Golubkova

HIGHLIGHTS  The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) has published a proposed rule that would establish a fee for parties filing a voluntary notice of a transaction subject to CFIUS review. Shortform declarations will not trigger a filing fee, but if the parties are instructed to file a written notice after CFIUS reviews the declaration, a fee must be paid.  The rule establishes a tiered filing fee structure for transactions valued at $500,000 or higher; transactions valued below $500,000 would not be assessed a fee. The maximum fee under the proposed structure is $300,000, with the fee generally representing not more than 0.15 percent of the transaction's value. Except in situations of material change, inaccuracy or omission, parties asked to withdraw and refile a notice will not be assessed a separate fee.  Under the proposed rule, CFIUS would not accept a transaction for review until the filing fee was paid. CFIUS has not provided an effective date.1

_____________________________ The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) published a proposed rule on March 9, 2020, that would establish a fee for parties filing a voluntary notice of certain transactions for review by CFIUS.2 In establishing a fee for such notices, the proposed rule would implement Section 1723 of the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA), which amends Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 to allow CFIUS to collect fees. CFIUS invited the public and industry to submit comments on the proposed rule by early April 2020. Unlike previous proposed CFIUS rules, CFIUS has not established an effective date for this proposed rule; such effective date is expected to be issued at the time CFIUS publishes the final rule. The new rule would impact investors in a range of sectors, including federal, commercial and residential real estate, government contractors, private equity and other investment firms, telecommunications and others. FIRRMA affirmed the Committee's jurisdiction over any transaction that could result in foreign control of a U.S. business, and it broadened the authorities of the president and CFIUS under Section 721 to review and to take action to address any national security concerns arising from certain non-controlling investments and real estate transactions (all transactions subject to CFIUS jurisdiction referred to as covered transactions). Additionally, certain covered transactions are now subject to a mandatory filing, which can be accomplished through a short-form declaration. (See Holland & Knight's previous alert, "New CFIUS Regulations Finally Take Effect," Feb. 13, 2020.) FIRRMA further provided that "the Committee may assess and collect a fee in an amount determined by the Committee in regulations ... with respect to each covered transaction for which a written notice is submitted to the Committee."3 FIRRMA directed that the fee be based on the value of the transaction, taking various factors into account. It also provided that such fees may not exceed an amount equal to the lesser of 1 percent of the value of the transaction or $300,000, adjusted annually for inflation.

FILING FEES ONLY FOR WRITTEN NOTICES The proposed rule would establish a fee for filing a voluntary written notice in reference to a covered transaction. The proposed fee structure and amounts are the same for covered transactions under Part 800 (U.S. businesses) and Part 802 (real estate). In accordance with FIRRMA, there is no fee for any declaration submitted to the Committee, or for any unilateral review of a transaction based on an agency notice filed by any member of the Committee. However, the filing fee will apply to notices filed by the parties after CFIUS completed its assessment of a declaration but was not able to conclude all action under Section 721 and clear the transaction, and either requests that the parties file a written notice or leaves it to the parties to decide whether to file a written notice. The filing fee would also apply where parties choose to notify CFIUS of a transaction subject to a mandatory filing through a written notice instead of a declaration.

FILING FEE STRUCTURE The proposed fees for notices are based on the value of the notified transaction, with transactions valued at less than $500,000 not being assessed a filing fee. For transactions valued at $500,000 or more, CFIUS uses a tiered approach, with the filing fee based on the transaction value:     

$500,000 to $5 million – a filing fee of $750 $5 million to $50 million – a filing fee of $7,500 $50 million to $250 million – a filing fee of $75,000 $250 million to $750 million – a filing fee of $150,000 $750 million and up – a filing fee of $300,000.

With limited exception, CFIUS will not accept the notice until the fee is paid.

CALCULATING TRANSACTION VALUE The proposed rule describes with particularity how to determine the value of a transaction for purposes of calculating the applicable fee. Typically, the value of the transaction will be based on the amount of money the foreign person is paying in the transaction, i.e., the total value of all consideration that has been or will be paid in the context of the transaction, including cash, assets, shares or other ownership interests, debt forgiveness, services, or other in-kind consideration. Where a covered transaction is a part of a transaction that includes one or more non-U.S. businesses, the total value of the transaction will generally be assessed based on the global value of the transaction encompassing both U.S. and non-U.S. businesses. The proposed rule creates an exception for covered transactions under Part 800 where the value of the transaction is $5 million or more, but the value of the interests or rights acquired in the U.S. business is less than $5 million. In such cases, the fee will be $750. This exception was intended to minimize any potential disincentives the fee may pose to parties filing a notice with CFIUS in which the target company has a limited presence in the United States. For real estate covered transactions under Part 802, leases and concessions would be valued according to the sum of the consideration, including lease inducements, fixed payments, certain variable lease payments, and other types of identifiable consideration applicable to real estate transactions. Within the general categories of real estate transactions, certain variations in terms of valuation, payment structures, and other consideration will impact the fee calculation.

The proposed rule also addresses scenarios where consideration may be paid in securities or other non-cash assets, in services or other in-kind consideration. In the rare circumstance in which the consideration for a transaction has not been determined, the value of the transaction would be based on the fair market value of the business or real estate being acquired.

FEE REFUNDS AND WITHDRAWALS Furthermore, CFIUS would not provide refunds of paid fees, unless it determines that a notified transaction is not a covered transaction. The proposed rule would also permit parties to petition CFIUS to seek a partial refund of fees if the parties can demonstrate that the fee paid is in an amount greater than required at the time of filing. Finally, the proposed rule would not require parties to pay an additional fee where the Committee allows the parties to withdraw and refile a notice, unless it is determined that a material change to the transaction has occurred, or that a material inaccuracy or omission was made by the parties in information provided, that requires CFIUS to consider new information.

WHO PAYS THE FILING FEE The proposed rule does not specify who pays the filing fee; therefore, it would be up to the parties how they decide to share the burden of the filing fee through their contractual arrangements â&#x20AC;&#x201D; whether the fee is split equally between the parties, or paid by the buyer as the entity that bears the risk of an unwinding. Neither does the rule specify whether parties would be fined if they did not provide accurate information to CFIUS on the value of the transaction.

CONCLUSION CFIUS attempted to limit the impact of filing fees on new foreign investment in the U.S. by excluding small value transactions from the requirement to pay, and establishing a fee structure that is capped at 0.15 percent of the value of the transaction, substantially lower than the 1 percent authorized by FIRRMA. Industry is encouraged to submit comments on the proposed rule, particularly if they foresee a chilling effect on foreign investment in the U.S. and believe the exempted transaction value should be set up higher than $500,000. For assistance in submitting comments or for more information on the proposed rule and how it could impact your company, contact the authors or another member of Holland & Knight's CFIUS and Industrial Security Team.

___________ Effective May 1, 2020, CFIUS will begin assessing filing fees on voluntary written notices filed under 31 C.F.R. Parts 800 and 802 (See Holland & Knight's latest alert, "Filing Fees Are Here: CFIUS Establishes Fee Structure," May 1, 2020.) 2 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Investment Security, 31 C.F.R. Parts 800 and 802, "Filing Fees for Notices of Certain Investments in the United States by Foreign Persons and Certain Transactions by Foreign Persons Involving Real Estate in the United States," 85 Fed. Reg. 13586 (March 9, 2020). 3 FIRRMA, Section 1723. 1

CFIUS 公布了关于新申请费的拟议规则原文作者：Antonia I. Tzinova 及 Dariya V. Golubkova

重点摘要  美国外国投资委员会（CFIUS）公布了一项拟议规则，该规则将为当事方自愿提交需经 CFIUS 审查的交易通知确定费用。简式声明不会触发申请费，但如果在 CFIUS 审查声明后要求双方提交书面通知，则必须支付费用。  该规则为价值 50 万美元或以上的交易建立了一个分级的申请费结构；价值 50 万美元以下的交易将不收取费用。拟议结构下的最高费用为 30 万美元，费用一般不超过交易价值的 0.15%。除发生重大变更、不准确或遗漏的情况外，被要求撤回和重新提交通知的各方将无需另外付费。  根据拟议的规则，CFIUS 在支付申请费之前不会接受交易审查。CFIUS 尚未提供生效日期。1

_____________________________ 美国外国投资委员会（CFIUS）于 2020 年 3 月 9 日公布了一项拟议规则，该规则将为提交某些交易的自愿通知以供 CFIUS 审查的当事人收取费用 2 在确定此类通知的费用时，拟议规则将实施 2018 年《外国投资风险审查现代化法案》（FIRRMA）第 1723 条，该法案修订了 1950 年《国防生产法》的第 721 条，以允许 CFIUS 收取费用。 CFIUS 邀请公众和产业界在 2020 年 4 月初之前就拟议规则提交意见。与之前提出的 CFIUS 拟议规则不同， CFIUS 尚未确定该拟议规则的生效日期；预计该生效日期将在 CFIUS 发布最终规则时发布。新规定将对包括联邦、商业和住宅房地产、政府承包商、私募股权和其他投资公司、电信等许多产业的投资人产生影响。 FIRRMA 确认了委员会对任何可能导致外国控制美国企业的交易的管辖权，并扩大了总统和 CFIUS 在第 721 条下的权限，以审查和采取措施解决由某些非控制性投资和房地产交易引起的任何国家安全问题（受 CFIUS 管辖的所有交易称为“涵盖交易”）。此外，某些涵盖交易现在必须提交进行强制申报，而这些可以通过简式的声明来完成。（请参见 Holland & Knight 先前的提示文章，“新的 CFIUS 规则终于生效了”，2020 年 2 月 13 日）。 FIRRMA 进一步规定，“委员会可以….就向委员会提交书面通知的每个涵盖交易评估和收取委员会在法规中确定的费用。”3 FIRRMA 规定费用应以交易价值为基础，并考虑到各种因素。它还规定，此类费用不得超过交易价值的 1%或每年因通货膨胀调整后的 300,000 美元中的较小者。

仅书面通知的申请费拟议的规则将规定就所涉交易提交自愿书面通知的费用。第 800 部分（美国企业）和第 802 部分（房地产）项下涵盖交易的拟议费用结构和金额相同。根据 FIRRMA，向委员会提交的任何声明，或根据委员会任何成员提交的代理通知对交易进行的任何单方面审查，均不收取任何费用。但是，申请费将适用于 CFIUS 完成对声明的评估后，但未能完成第 721 条规定的所有行动并通过交易，以及要求双方提交书面通知或交由各方决定是否提交书面通知的交易。如果当事方选择通过书面通知而非声明的方式将应强制申报的交易通知 CFIUS，则申请费用也将适用。

申请费结构拟议的通知费是根据已通知交易的价值而计算的，价值低于 50 万美元的交易不收取申请费。对于价值 50 万美元或以上的交易，CFIUS 采用分级方法，根据交易价值收取申请费：  50 万美元至 500 万美元–申请费 750 美元  500 万美元至 5,000 万美元–申请费 7,500 美元  5000 万美元至 2.5 亿美元–申请费 75,000 美元  2.5 亿美元至 7.5 亿美元–申请费 15 万美元  7.5 亿美元及以上–申请费 300,000 美元。除有限的例外情况外，在支付费用之前，CFIUS 不会接受该通知。

计算交易价值拟议规则特别描述了如何确定交易的价值以计算适用的费用。通常，交易的价值将基于外国人在交易中支付的金额，即在交易中已经支付或将要支付的所有对价的总价值，包括现金、资产、股份或其他所有权权益、债务免除、服务，或其他实物对价。如果涵盖的交易是包含一个或多个非美国企业的交易的一部分，则该交易的总价值通常将根据包含美国和非美国企业的交易的全球价值进行评估。拟议的规则为第 800 部分下的涵盖交易创造了一个例外，即交易价值为 500 万美元或以上，但在美国企业中获得的权益或权利价值低于 500 万美元。在这种情况下，费用是 750 美元。这一例外的目的是为了减低向 CFIUS 提交通知的申请费在目标公司在美国只有有限运作的交易中可能遏制各方投资意愿的因素。对于第 802 部分下的房地产涵盖的交易，租赁和特许权将根据对价的总和进行估价，包括租赁诱因、固定付款、某些可变租赁付款和适用于房地产交易的其他类型的可识别对价。在房地产交易的一般类别中，估价、支付结构和其他对价的某些变化将影响费用计算。拟议的规则还涉及可能以证券或其他非现金资产、服务或其他实物对价支付对价的情况。在交易的对价尚未确定的罕见情况下，交易的价值将以被收购企业或房地产的公平市场价值为基础。

退费和取款此外，CFIUS 不会退还已支付的费用，除非它确定通知的交易不是涵盖交易。如果当事方能够证明所支付的费用数额大于申请时所要求的金额，拟议的规则还将允许当事方请求 CFIUS 作部分退款。最后，在委员会允许当事人撤回和重新提交通知的情况下，拟议的规则将不要求当事人支付额外费用，除非确定交易发生了重大变化、或当事人在提供的信息中有重大不准确或遗漏，而造成 CFIUS 需考虑新的信息。

由谁支付申请费

拟议的规则没有具体规定由谁支付申请费；因此，应由当事人决定如何通过其合同安排分担申请费——费用是在当事人之间平均分摊，还是因实体架构会有所变化的风险由买方支付。该规则也没有具体规定如果当事人没有向 CFIUS 提供有关交易价值的准确信息是否会被罚款。

结论 CFIUS 试图通过将小额交易排除在支付要求之外，并建立一个收费结构，其上限为交易价值的 0.15%，大大低于 FIRRMA 授权的 1%，来限制申请费对美国新外国投资的影响。鼓励业界就拟议规则提交意见，特别是如果他们预见到对外国在美投资的寒蝉效应，并认为豁免交易价值应高于 50 万美元。如需有关建议规则及其如何影响贵公司的意见或更多信息，请联系作者或 Holland & Knight 的 CFIUS 和产业安全团队的其他成员。

___________ 1自

2020 年 5 月 1 日起，CFIUS 将开始收取根据 31 C.F.R.第 800 和 802 部分提交的自愿书面通知的申请费（请见

Holland & Knight 的最新警示文章，“Filing Fees Are Here: CFIUS Establishes Fee Structure,”2020 年 5 月 1 日。） C.F.R.第 800 和 802 部分，“外国人在美国的某些投资通知和外国人在美国涉及房地产的某些交易的申请费”，85 Fed Reg 13586（2020 年 3 月 9 日）。

2 美国财政部投资安全办公室，31

FIRRMA，第 1723 条。

U.S. Income Tax Residence and the Coronavirus By Seth J. Entin

HIGHLIGHTS: ď Ž With the unfortunate emergence and rapid spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, there are many non-U.S. individuals who will be spending significantly longer than expected in the United States this year. ď Ž This Holland & Knight article addresses certain of the basic ground rules under current law for determining whether an individual is a U.S. income tax resident, and certain relief that (depending on the circumstances) may be available under current law. _____________________________ With the unfortunate emergence and rapid spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, there are many non-U.S. individuals who will be spending significantly longer than expected in the United States this year. A critical question is whether these individuals will be classified as U.S. residents for U.S. federal income tax purposes (referred to as U.S. income tax residents). This Holland & Knight article addresses certain of the basic ground rules under current law for determining whether an individual is a U.S. income tax resident, and certain relief that (depending on the circumstances) may be available under current law.

BACKGROUND An individual who is not a U.S. citizen or a U.S. income tax resident is referred to as a nonresident alien. A nonresident alien is only subject to U.S. federal income tax on certain U.S. source income and certain limited types of non-U.S. source income that are "effectively connected" with a trade or business of the nonresident alien in the United States. On the other hand, a U.S. citizen or a U.S. income tax resident is subject to U.S. federal income taxation on his or her worldwide income. In many cases, this may include the income of non-U.S. companies that the individual owns, even if those companies do not distribute their income to their shareholders. Furthermore, a U.S. citizen or U.S. income tax resident is subject to extensive Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and U.S. Department of the Treasury reporting requirements, such as reporting with respect to his or her interests in non-U.S. companies, ownership of or distributions from non-U.S. trusts, gifts from nonresident aliens, ownership of non-U.S. financial assets, and ownership of or signature authority over non-U.S. financial accounts.

DEFINITION OF U.S. INCOME TAX RESIDENT In general, under the Internal Revenue Code (Code), an individual is deemed to be a U.S. income tax resident if the individual either 1) holds a U.S. green card, or 2) meets the "substantial presence test" (sometimes referred to as the "day-count" test). An individual meets the substantial presence test (subject to certain exceptions) if he or she is present in the United States for 183 days or more during the current calendar year. Copyright ÂŠ 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

An individual also meets the substantial presence test (subject to certain exceptions) if he or she is present in the United States for 1) at least 31 days during the current year, and 2) at least 183 days for the three-year period ending on the last day of the current year, using a "weighted average" formula. This weighted average formula equals the sum of: •

All of the number of days the individual is present in the United States during the current calendar year; plus

•

One-third of the number of days the individual was present in the United States during the preceding year; plus

•

One-sixth of the number of days the individual was present in the United States during the second preceding year.

Any day in which an individual is physically present in the United States, even for a brief amount of time, counts as a day of presence in the United States for purposes of this formula, unless the individual is in transit between two non-U.S. points and certain requirements are met, or unless certain other very limited exceptions apply. It is important to note that, under the substantial presence test, an individual's residency starting date, as a general rule, is the individual's first day of physical presence in the United States during the year (subject to a limited exception).

CLOSER CONNECTION EXCEPTION There are several exceptions to the substantial presence test. One important exception to the substantial presence test that is of great importance to non-U.S. individuals who are compelled to spend more time in the United States because of the coronavirus is known as the "closer connection exception." This exception applies where an individual is present in the United States for less than 183 days during the current year, but the weighted average formula (described above) equals or exceeds 183 days (because of the individual's presence in the United States in the two preceding years). For this exception to apply, it must be established that, for the current year, the individual has a 1) "tax home" in a country other than the United States, and 2) "closer connections" to that other country than to the United States. The Treasury Department Regulations (Regulations) provide that an individual's tax home is the individual's regular or principal (if there is more than one regular) place of business. If the individual has no regular or principal place of business because of the nature of the individual's business, or because the individual is not engaged in carrying on a trade or business, the individual's tax home is his or her "regular place of abode in a real and substantial sense." The Regulations list 10 nonexclusive factors that are considered in determining whether a closer connection exists. These factors include the: 1) location of the individual's permanent home; 2) location of the individual's family; 3) location of personal belongings, such as automobiles, furniture, clothing and jewelry owned by the individual; 4) location of social, political, cultural or religious organizations in which the individual has a current relationship; 5) location of the individual's personal bank accounts; 6) location where the individual conducts business activities other than those that constitute the individual's principal business; 7) type of driver's license

held by the individual; 8) country of residence designated by the individual on forms and documents; 9) types of official forms and documents filed by the individual; and 10) where the individual votes. As noted above, the closer connection exception will not apply if the individual is present in the United States for 183 days or more during the current year. This exception will also not apply if the individual is a lawful permanent resident of the United States (that is, a green card holder), or the individual has applied, or "taken other affirmative steps" to change his or her status to that of a lawful permanent resident during the current year, or has an application pending for adjustment of status during the current year. An individual must file IRS Form 8840 (Closer Connection Exception Statement for Aliens) by the applicable deadline to claim this exception.

TREATY TIE-BREAKER CLAIM Even if an individual meets the substantial presence test (and is therefore a U.S. income tax resident under the Code), if the individual continues to also be a tax resident in a country that is party to an income tax treaty with the United States (referred to herein as a "treaty party country"), he or she may be able to avoid being taxed as a U.S. income tax resident under relief provided by the applicable treaty. This relief provision, often referred to as a "tie-breaker" provision, allows an individual who is deemed a tax resident of both the United States and a treaty party country to only be subject to tax as a resident of one of the two countries, based on a set of rules that determine of which country the individual will be deemed a tax resident. In order to obtain tie-breaker relief to be taxed as a resident of the treaty party country rather than the United States, the individual would have to meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable treaty, which often involves having certain closer ties to the treaty party country than the United States. If an individual were to claim tie-breaker relief, the individual would calculate his or her U.S. income tax liability as if he or she were a nonresident alien. This would potentially allow the individual to avoid worldwide U.S. federal income taxation. However, unlike the closer connection exception, an individual who makes a treaty tie-breaker claim would have to file IRS Form 1040NR (U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return), and the individual is subject to many of the reporting requirements that are applicable to U.S. income tax residents (for example, the individual must report certain ownership of non-U.S. entities, financial interests or signature authority over non-U.S. financial accounts, gifts from a nonresident alien, etc.). The individual would also be required to file IRS Form 8833 (Treaty-Based Return Position Disclosure), on which the individual would claim the tie-breaker position.

MEDICAL EXCEPTION The Code provides for a "medical exception" from the substantial presence test. Unfortunately, however, the scope of individuals covered by this medical exception is somewhat limited. Under the Code, a day of presence in the United States is disregarded for purposes of the substantial presence test if the taxpayer is "unable to leave the United States on such day because of a medical condition which arose while such individual was present in the United States." Under the Regulations, this exception applies only if "the individual intends to leave and is unable to leave the United States because of a medical condition â&#x20AC;Ś that arose while the individual was present in the United States." It does not apply if the "condition or problem existed prior to the individual's arrival in the United States Copyright ÂŠ 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

[and] the individual was aware of the condition or problem, regardless of whether the individual required treatment for the condition or problem when the individual entered the United States." Furthermore, even if an individual initially qualifies for the medical exemption, the medical exception ceases to apply if, on becoming well enough to travel, the individual "remains in the United States beyond a reasonable period for making arrangements to leave."

CONCLUSION It is critical for a non-U.S. individual who is at risk of becoming a U.S. income tax resident to carefully review his or her status and, if possible, take steps to avoid becoming a U.S. income tax resident. If the individual will become a U.S. income tax resident, careful tax analysis and planning is required to assess the situation and attempt to mitigate adverse consequences. DISCLAIMER: Please note that the situation surrounding COVID-19 is evolving and that the subject matter discussed in these publications may change on a daily basis. Please contact your responsible Holland & Knight lawyer or the author for timely advice.

美国所得税居民身份与冠状病毒原文作者：Seth J. Entin

重点摘要：  随着冠状病毒（COVID-19）大流行的不幸出现和迅速传播，今年将有许多非美国个人将在远远超过他们所预期的时间内停留在美国。  本篇文章将讨论根据现行法律中用以确定个人是否为美国所得税居民的某些基本规则，以及现行法律（在某些情况下）所允许的某些救济。 _____________________________ 随着冠状病毒（COVID-19）大流行的不幸出现和迅速传播，今年将有许多非美国个人将在远远超过他们所预期的时间内停留在美国。一个重要的问题是，这些个人是否会就美国联邦所得税的目的被归类为美国居民（称为美国所得税居民）。本篇文章将讨论现行法律中用以确定个人是否为美国所得税居民的某些基本规则，以及现行法律（在某些情况下）所允许的某些救济。背景一个不是美国公民或美国所得税居民的个人被称为非居民外国人。非居民外国人仅会就某些美国来源收入和某些有限类型的与非居民外国人在美国的贸易或业务“有效连结”的非美国来源收入被课征美国联邦所得税。另一方面，美国公民或美国所得税居民的全球收入都须缴纳美国联邦所得税。在许多情况下，这可能包括个人拥有的非美国公司的收入，即使这些公司不向股东分配收入。此外，美国公民或美国所得税居民须遵守广泛的美国国税局（IRS）和美国财政部的报告要求，例如报告其在非美国公司中的权益、对非美国信托公司的所有权或或从其所得到的分配、自非居民外国人处收到的礼物，对非美国金融资产的所有权，以及对非美国金融账户的所有权或签字权。

美国所得税居民的定义一般而言，根据《美国国内税收法典》（美国税法），如果个人 1）持有美国绿卡，或 2）符合“实质存在测试”（有时称为“日数”测试），则该个人将被视为美国所得税居民。如果个人在当前日历年内在美国停留 183 天或更长时间，则他符合了实质存在测试（除某些例外情况外）。如果一个人 1）在本年度内在美国停留至少 31 天，且 2）在本年度最后一天前的三年期间内（使用“加权平均”公式计算）在美国至少停留 183 天，则他符合了实质存在测试（除某些例外情况外）。此加权平均公式等于以下天数的总和：  该个人在当前日历年在美国的天数的全部；加上  上一年该个人在美国停留的天数的三分之一；加上 Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

 再上一年该个人在美国停留的天数的六分之一。就本公式而言，个人实际在美国停留的任何一天，即使停留的时间很短，均视为在美国停留的一天，除非该个人在两个非美国点之间过境，并且满足某些要求，或者除非适用某些其他非常有限的例外情况。必须指出的是，在实质存在测试中，个人的居住开始日期，作为一般规则，是个人在一年中在美国的第一天（受限于有限的例外情况）。

更紧密联系的例外实质存在测试有几个例外。对于那些因冠状病毒而被迫在美国待更多时间的非美国个人来说，实质存在测试的其中一个最重要的例外被称为“更紧密联系例外”。这一例外情况适用于个人在本年度在美国停留少于 183 天，但加权平均公式（如上所述）等于或超过 183 天（因为个人在前两年在美国停留）。为了适用这一例外，必须确定在本年度中： 1）该个人在美国以外的国家有一个“税务家庭”；且 2）该个人与美国以外的国家有“更密切的联系”。财政部条例（条例）规定，个人的税务家庭是个人的固定营业地或主要营业地（如果有一个以上的固定营业地）。如果由于个人的业务性质，或者由于个人不从事贸易或业务，该个人没有固定或主要的营业地，则该个人的税务家庭是他的“真正和实质意义上的固定居住地”。条例列出了在确定是否存在更密切联系时所考虑的 10 个非排他性因素。这些因素包括：1）个人永久住所的地点；2）个人家庭的地点；3）个人物品的地点，如个人拥有的汽车、家具、衣服和珠宝；4）个人现维持关系的社会、政治、文化或宗教组织的地点；5）个人银行账户的地点；6）个人从事构成个人主营业务以外的经营活动的地点；7）个人持有的驾驶证类型；8）个人在表格和文件上指定的居住国；9）个人提交的正式表格和文件的类型；及 10）个人投票的地方。如上所述，如果该个人在本年度在美国停留 183 天或更长时间，则“更密切联系例外”将不适用。如果该个人是美国的合法永久居民（即绿卡持有人），或该个人已申请或“采取其他积极措施”在本年度内将其身份变更为合法永久居民或有申请等待身份调整的情形，则该例外也不适用在本年度。个人必须在适用的截止日期前提交 IRS 8840 表（外国人的更紧密联系例外声明），以申请该例外。

税务条约下打破平局的主张即使个人符合实质存在测试（因此是美国税法规定的美国所得税居民），如果该个人仍然是与美国签订所得税条约的国家（此处称为“条约缔约国”）的税务居民，根据适用条约规定的减免，他可以避免作为美国所得税居民纳税。这一救济规定，通常被称为“打破平局”的规定，允许被视为美国和条约缔约国的税务居民的个人，根据一套确定个人将被视为哪个国家的税务居民的规则，只作为这两个国家之一的居民纳税。为了获得作为条约缔约国而不是美国居民征税的打破平局救济，个人必须满足适用条约中规定的某些要求，这通常涉及与条约缔约国而不是美国有某些更密切的联系。

如果一个个人要求主张打破平局的救济，他将以其非居民外国人的身份来计算他的美国所得税责任，这将有可能使该个人避免在全球范围内被征收美国联邦所得税。然而，与更紧密联系例外不同的是，提出税务条约下打破平局的主张的个人必须向 IRS 提交 1040NR 报税表（美国非居民外国所得税申报表），并且该个人必须遵守适用于美国所得税居民的许多报告要求（例如，个人必须报告非美国实体的某些所有权、非美国金融账户的金融权益或签名权、非居民外国人的礼物等）。个人还需要提交 IRS 8833 表（基于条约的申报身份披露），根据该表，个人将主张适用税务条约下打破平局的立场。

医疗例外美国税法规定了实质存在测试的“医疗例外”。然而，不幸的是，这一医疗例外所涵盖的个人范围相当有限。根据美国税法，如果纳税人“因该个人在美国期间出现的医疗状况而无法在该日离开美国”，则在实质存在测试中，该等在美国停留的日期将被忽略不计。根据条例，这一例外仅适用于“个人因其在美国期间出现的医疗状况……而打算离开且无法离开美国”的情况。如果“在个人抵达美国之前存在的状况或问题，[且]个人意识到了这种情况或问题，则无论个人在进入美国时是否需要对这种情况或问题进行治疗，该规定均不适用。” 此外，即使一个人最初有资格获得医疗豁免，但如果该个人在康复到可以旅行时，“在作出离开安排的合理期限之后仍留在美国”，则医疗豁免将不再适用。

结论对于有可能成为美国所得税居民的非美国个人来说，仔细审查其身份至关重要，如果可能，采取措施避免成为美国所得税居民。如果个人将成为美国所得税居民，则需要进行仔细的税务分析和规划，以评估情况并试图减轻不利后果。免责声明：请注意，关于 COVID-19 的情况正在演变，这些出版物中讨论的主题可能每天都会发生变化。请联系 Holland& Knight 的律师或本文作者，以获得及时的建议。

Litigating Trade Secrets Cases in California By Vito A. Costanzo There are many complications and hurdles associated with litigating a trade secrets case in California courts. It is essential that a company have a basic understanding of these issues before entering into a lawsuit in California, either as a plaintiff or defendant. This Holland & Knight article will discuss the various aspects of trade secret litigation in California and how to protect oneself from unnecessarily expensive litigation when the requirements are not known or understood.

WHAT IS A TRADE SECRET? The first step in preparing for trade secret litigation is to understand the definition of the term "trade secret." A trade secret is unlike other forms of intellectual property, such as patents, copyrights and trademarks, which are, for the most part, registered with the government and are known to others by virtue of their disclosure in the filing. For example, the invention to be protected by a patent must be disclosed in the "claims" submitted with the registration application and, if the patent is approved, others will know of the invention in detail, but will be precluded from using it. In contrast, a trade secret is, as its name implies, something that is not known to outsiders. The definition of a trade secret is: A formula, pattern, etc., that is not generally known in the industry and that derives independent economic value from not being generally known. Accordingly, the technology to be protected by a trade secret is, by its nature, not known to others. Examples of trade secrets are: manufacturing processes, customer lists, chemical formulas, business processes, etc. It is possible that a company might choose to assert trade secret protection of a technology and keep it a secret instead of publicly disclosing the technology and registering it as a patent. A company might choose to do this either because it lacks the time to register its technology as a patent or because it does not want to risk disclosing its technology to outsiders, even if it is protected as a patent. The lack of registration of a trade secret means that a determination of whether the data is protectable will not be made by an registration entity and will instead most likely be determined by a court.

HOW ARE TRADE SECRETS NORMALLY STOLEN? There are several scenarios that normally lead to trade secret litigation, which usually involve an outsider or former insider obtaining access to a company's secrets without authorization. One of the most common thefts of trade secrets that results in litigation occurs when an employee with access to such information leaves the company to go to a competitor or to form his or her own competing company. In such cases, the victim usually sues both the employee and the new company on a theory that they either encouraged or used the stolen trade secrets. In cases of defecting employees, the victim must prove in court that its prior employee had access to, and actually stole, the trade secrets. As referenced above, the victim company must also prove that the item is actually a trade secret. Another common source of trade secret litigation in California occurs when two companies enter into a joint venture to exploit the technology. When such ventures dissolve, there is often a claim that one of the parties is making unauthorized use of the technology in a competing venture. Copyright ÂŠ 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

Other scenarios that may give rise to trade secret litigation involve unauthorized access to one's information, such as hacking or industrial espionage. These cases may also lead to criminal charges.

HOW TO PROVE THAT YOU HAVE PROTECTED THE TRADE SECRETS Once a lawsuit commences, the plaintiff will need to prove that it took steps to ensure that its information actually was kept secret. It is essential that the plaintiff prove that it limited disclosure of its information to employees who needed to know that information in order to do their work. Such proof usually involves evidence that nondisclosure agreements were used and that the information was not widely disseminated within the company. The plaintiff should be prepared with documentary evidence showing that it used passwords and imposed restrictions on who had access to the information. From the defendant's perspective, it is helpful to be prepared to prove that the company imposed obligations on its own employees not to steal or bring trade secrets owned by others to the new company. Such evidence would include contractual obligations by new employees providing that they are not to engage in such activities. In this way, a defendant can prove that it did not participate or encourage a theft of trade secrets.

REQUIREMENT TO IDENTIFY TRADE SECRETS IN LITIGATION One major components of trade secret litigation in California is the requirement of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 that the plaintiff identify its trade secret at the beginning of the lawsuit with reasonable particularity. Section 2019.210 states that the plaintiff cannot request information from the defendant during the discovery process until it has sufficiently identified the content of its trade secret. A protective order is normally used to ensure that the trade secret is protected once it is disclosed. There are several purposes of this requirement. First, it encourages plaintiffs to file lawsuits only after they have conducted a thorough investigation of its claims. Accordingly, care must be taken to evaluate what is contended to be a trade secret before the lawsuit is filed. Secondly, the description of the trade secret provided by the plaintiff will assist the parties and the court in defining the scope of the types of discovery that will be permitted. If the trade secret is defined to comprise certain aspects of plaintiff's customer list, then the parties will not be permitted to obtain discovery regarding each other's manufacturing processes. Third, the required detailed disclosure of the trade secret does not require a description of every detail. The description must be sufficiently detailed so that it will help ascertain whether the information is actually a trade secret or whether the plaintiff is trying to exert ownership over something that is already well known. Some plaintiffs will choose to file their trade secret litigation in federal court in an effort to avoid the California state court requirement that it disclose its trade secrets. While it is true that the federal law does not preclude discovery prior to disclosure of the trade secret and does not require disclosure of a trade secret with reasonable particularity, even under the federal trade secrets act, a plaintiff must still describe the subject matter of the trade secret with sufficient particularity to separate it from matters of general knowledge. The federal act does not have the same reasonable particularity requirement and does not preclude discovery prior to disclosure.

USE OF EXPERTS IN TRADE SECRETS LITIGATION The use of expert testimony in trade secrets litigation is of crucial importance. An expert will often be necessary to explain the technology and to show how the other side's technology is the same. Expert testimony is also useful to prove the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff. It is not uncommon to see multiple experts on each side of a trade secrets lawsuit in California.

ATTORNEYS' FEES SHIFTED FOR BAD FAITH Lastly, it is possible that if a trade secrets claim is brought or opposed in bad faith, the offending party will have to pay the other side's attorneys' fees. It is rare that attorneys' fees will be awarded. This usually occurs when a trade secret case has been brought in order to harm a competitor and it is completely lacking in merit.

CONCLUSION Trade secret litigation in California will be very expensive for both sides. Key steps should be taken in organizing one's case to avoid making the case more expensive than necessary, such as ensuring that one truly owns a trade secret before initiating litigation and ensuring that the case is properly presented.

加州商业秘密诉讼原文作者：Vito A. Costanzo

在加州法院提起商业秘密诉讼有许多复杂的问题和障碍。无论是作为原告还是被告，在加州提起该等诉讼之前，公司必须对这些问题有一个基本的了解。本篇文章将讨论有关加州商业秘密诉讼的许多方面的问题，以及如何保护自己免受因不知道或不理解这些要求而可能造成的不必要的昂贵诉讼。

什么是商业秘密？为商业秘密诉讼做准备的第一步就是理解“商业秘密”一词的定义。商业秘密不同于其他形式的知识产权，如专利、版权和商标，而那些权利在大多数的情况下需向政府登记注册，并因申请中的披露而为他人所知。例如，受专利保护的发明必须在登记申请中一并提交的“权利主张”中公开，并且，如果该专利获得批准，其他人将对该发明有详细的了解，但将被排除使用该发明。相反地，商业秘密，顾名思义，是外人不知道的东西。商业秘密的定义是：行业中不为人所知的公式、模式等，由于不为人所知而产生独立的经济价值。因此，受商业秘密保护的技术，就其性质而言，不为他人所知。商业秘密的例子有：制造过程，客户名单，化学配方、商业流程等。公司有可能选择对某项技术进行商业秘密保护并保守秘密，而不是公开披露该项技术并将其注册为专利。一家公司可能会选择这样做，要么是因为它没有时间将其技术注册为专利，要么是因为它不想冒险向外界披露其技术，即使它作为专利时将受到保护。商业秘密未经登记，意味着这些信息是否受到保护将不是由登记机关来决定，而最有可能将由法院确定。

商业秘密通常是如何被窃取的？通常有几种情况会导致商业秘密诉讼，通常涉及外部人员或前内部人员未经授权获取公司机密。最常见的导致诉讼的商业秘密盗窃案之一是有权获得此类信息的员工离开公司而前往竞争对手或组建自己的竞争公司。在这种情况下，受害者通常会根据他们鼓励或使用被盗商业机密的理论起诉雇员和新公司。在跳槽雇员的案件中，受害者必须在法庭上证明其前雇员接触并实际窃取了商业机密。如上所述，受害公司还必须证明该物品实际上是商业秘密。加州商业秘密诉讼的另一个常见来源是两家公司为利用一项技术而成立合资企业。当此类合资企业解散时，通常会发生声称其中一方在竞争的企业中对该技术进行未经授权的使用的主张。其他可能引发商业秘密诉讼的情况包括未经授权取得个人信息，如骇客攻击或工业间谍活动。这些案件也可能导致刑事指控。

如何证明你保护了商业秘密

一旦诉讼开始，原告将需要证明，它采取了措施确保其信息实际上是保密的。原告必须证明，它将信息披露限制在需要了解该信息才能开展工作的员工。此类证据通常包括使用保密协议的证据，以及信息在公司内部没有广泛传播的证据。原告应准备好书面证据，证明其使用了密码，并对谁有权使用这些信息施加了限制。从被告的角度来看，准备好证明公司对自己的雇员施加了义务，规定不得窃取或携带他人拥有的商业机密到新公司是有帮助的。这些证据将包括在新雇员的合同中规定他们不从事这种活动。这样，被告就可以证明自己没有参与或鼓励窃取商业秘密。

诉讼中商业秘密的认定要求加州商业秘密诉讼的一个主要构成要件是《加利福尼亚州民事诉讼法》第2019.210条的要求，即原告在诉讼开始时以符合合理特殊性标准的要求确认其为商业秘密。第2019.210条规定，在证据揭露程序中，原告不能向被告索取信息，除非其充分确定了商业秘密的内容。保护令通常用于确保商业秘密一经披露就受到保护。这项要求有几个目的。首先，它鼓励原告在对其主张进行彻底调查后才提起诉讼。因此，在提起诉讼之前，必须谨慎评估被认为是商业秘密的内容。其次，原告对商业秘密的描述将有助于当事人和法院界定所允许的证据揭露类型的范围。如果商业秘密被定义为包含原告客户名单的某些方面，那么双方将不被允许获得关于对方制造过程的发现。第三，商业秘密的详细披露不需要对每一个细节进行描述。描述必须足够详细，以便有助于确定信息是否实际是商业秘密，或者原告是否试图对已经众所周知的东西行使所有权。一些原告将选择向联邦法院提起商业秘密诉讼，以避免加州州法院要求其披露商业秘密。虽然联邦法律并不排除在商业秘密披露之前进行证据揭露，也不要求以符合合理特殊性标准的要求揭露的商业秘密，即使根据联邦商业秘密法律，原告仍必须以足以体现其特殊性的方式来描述商业秘密，以便将其与一般知识区别。联邦法没有同样的合理特殊性要求，也不排除揭露程序前的证据揭露。

专家在商业秘密诉讼中的运用专家证言在商业秘密诉讼中的运用至关重要。通常需要一位专家来解释这项技术，并展示另一方的技术是如何相同的。专家证言也有助于证明原告所受损害的数额。在加州，商业秘密诉讼的每一方都有多名专家，这并不少见。

律师费因恶意而转移最后，如果一项商业秘密索赔被恶意提出或反对，违反的一方将不得不支付另一方的律师费。很少有律师费会被判给。这通常发生在商业秘密案件是为了伤害竞争对手而提起的，而且完全没有提出的道理。

Federal Legislation to Address Fraudulent Trademark Applications By Thomas W. Brooke Obtaining a federal trademark registration is one key to doing business and establishing a brand in the United States. The Federal Trademark Statute, 15 U.S.C. Â§1051 et seq., often referred to as the "Lanham Act," grants trademark owners the right to obtain injunctive and monetary relief. Owners of registered trademarks are granted additional presumptions under the law. A federally registered trademark also means that the owner can block third parties from obtaining a domain name that includes the mark. Having a registered trademark is also crucial for those trading on Amazon and other e-commerce sites, as the sites reward officially trademarked products with higher visibility and search-generated listing results. Owners of federal trademark registrations may bar others from using the mark on Amazon, eBay and other popular sites, even without a court order.

U.S. TRADEMARK PROCESS In the United States, with some limited exceptions, a trademark must be used in commerce in connection with the goods or services applied for in order to qualify for trademark registration. Under the provisions of the Lanham Act, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) takes at face value the representations submitted under oath by the applicant for registration. As part of the application process, an applicant must submit a "specimen of use" in the form of image that appears on its face to display the mark on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application in use in commerce as of the claimed date, accompanied by the applicant's sworn statement that the image is genuine. For products, the mark must be shown on the product itself or on packaging, labels or tags. For software, a link to download the program will work. Advertising and promotional material will not. Advertising and promotional material may be used to show use of a mark with services, but the services must be clearly associated with the mark. At least one specimen must accompany each application. If the application covers multiple classes of goods and services, a specimen must be submitted for each class. In some cases, the USPTO will require a specimen for every product listed. So long as proper use is demonstrated, the specimen(s) of use will be accepted. The application will then be "published for opposition." Unless a third party claiming prior rights to the subject mark files a timely Notice of Opposition, a relatively expensive and time-consuming adversary proceeding between the applicant and the opposer, typically involving attorneys on both sides, the application will proceed to registration. Increasingly, trademark registrations are issued and being maintained for marks that have never been used or were not used as required before registration; the specimens of use are actually fakes and do not actually support the claims of use in commerce in the United States. In response to the increase in trademark applications that have inaccurate and possibly fraudulent statements regarding use, in 2019, the USPTO promulgated new regulations stating that foreign applicants would no longer be able to represent themselves before the USPTO and must appoint a U.S.-licensed attorney. Earlier this year, the USPTO required all applicants to provide an e-mail address for each application, in addition to the address provided by outside counsel.

ELIMINATING FRAUDULENT APPLICATIONS The problem of fraudulent applications persists, however. The U.S. Congress is considering legislation aimed at combating the influx of trademark applications that rely on doctored photographs and faked documents. Copyright ÂŠ 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

These fraudulent applications have the unfortunate side effect of casting suspicion on filings made by, and on behalf of, legitimate Chinese companies. Most applications from China are legitimate. The increase in applications can be partly explained by the encouragement of trade groups such as the International Trademark Association and the American government to get Chinese businesses to take intellectual property seriously. The Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 aims to create better practices and to give more authority to examining attorneys at the USPTO. Examiners' authority to collect evidence while reviewing new applications, including evidence from third parties, will be codified. These provisions are a reaction to the many applications filed with doctored or dubious images intended to show "actual use" of the marks applied for. In many cases, examiners have asked questions or requested details and found that the images did not actually support the claims in the applications. There have been situations where applicants have attempted to demonstrate use of a mark in U.S. commerce by submitting a screenshot of a preexisting, digitally altered Amazon or eBay listing. To combat the use of digitally altered images, the USPTO initiated the Trademark Specimen Protest Pilot Program. The program allowed third-party trademark owners to send an email to the USPTO if they can prove the images submitted with the new applications have been digitally altered. However, under current law, even if fraud is discovered, third party still must file cancellation proceedings, which can be prohibitively expensive for some businesses. The proposed legislation will take this pilot program and make it a formal process.

TRADEMARK MODERNIZATION ACT PROCEDURES The Trademark Modernization Act will create new cancellation procedures, allowing legitimate trademark owners to challenge what appear to be fraudulent registrations and request the termination of these trademark registrations when the marks in question were not used before registration. The new processes, namely, "expungement and reexamination," would be alternatives to traditional inter partes cancellation proceedings, which are often time-consuming and expensive. With respect to expungement, which would create a new Section 16A of the Trademark Act, the text of the bill explains: Although various bases for "nonuse" cancellation exist in the current statute, the concept of a mark having never been used is not expressly spelled out in the current statute. Because the law requires a "mark" to be used in U.S. commerce, the premise of an expungement proceeding is that the subject registration does not cover a "mark" because the subject of the registration was never used for the particular goods or services. The bill also creates a new Section 16B of the Trademark Act, which provides procedures for ex parte reexamination of trademark registrations "covering marks for which improper use claims were made during the examination process before registration." The key difference between expungement and ex parte reexamination is that in a reexamination procedure, the registrant must show commercial use in the United States during the time before the registration issued. In an expungement proceeding, a challenged registrant must provide evidence demonstrating, effectively, that it ever used the mark in commerce in the United States. These new examination practices, and more efficient, timely procedures to challenge lack of use for registered trademarks will ease the burden on new market entrants created by registrations that should not have been registered because the registrants lacked proper use of the marks. In addition, the Trademark Modernization Act promotes remedies designed to protect consumers in trademark cases. Historically, if a trademark owner prevailed in an infringement lawsuit, the owner would be entitled to a presumption that the court would award an injunction against the competitor's continuing use of a confusingly Copyright ÂŠ 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

similar trademark so that consumers would not be misled about the source of a good or service. However, following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in a patent infringement lawsuit holding that injunctions could not be presumed in that context, eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006), a circuit split has developed as to whether irreparable harm can be presumed when a trademark violation has been proven. The Act clarifies that for trademark violations, a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm exists given the consumer protection concerns that would occur otherwise. The practical effect of this legislation, supported by Republicans and Democrats on a bipartisan basis, will be that trademark applicants must be prepared to provide tangible and trustworthy evidence that consumers actually see products bearing the trademark applied for or that the services in question are truly promoted under the service mark as applied for. Mockups, prototypes and questionable photographs will not be accepted.

CONCLUSION Because many questionable trademark applications encountered by the USPTO have been filed by Chinese applicants, companies based in China should expect additional scrutiny and be sure that evidence of use is comprehensive and complete. Applicants should be prepared to provide evidence of sales such as invoices, bills of lading or other shipping documents, along with images of the mark on the products, packaging, labels or tags. Mere promotional material will not suffice. Applicants should avoid submitting any evidence of use from third party sites such as Amazon or eBay. This material will almost assuredly create doubt in the mind of an examining attorney.

因应欺诈性商标申请的联邦立法原文作者：Thomas W. Brooke 获得联邦商标注册是在美国开展业务和建立品牌的关键之一。《联邦商标法》（即《美国法典》第 15 章第 1051 条及以下，通常被称为《兰厄姆法案》）授予商标所有人取得禁令和金钱救济的权利。根据该法律，注册商标的所有人还享有其他推定的权利。联邦注册商标还意味着所有人可以阻止第三方获取包含该商标的域名。拥有注册商标对于那些在亚马逊和其他电子商务网站上进行交易的人来说也是至关重要的，因为这些网站的设计对具有更高可见度和会出现在搜索列表结果的真实商标产品有利。联邦注册商标的所有人即使没有法院命令也可以禁止其他人在亚马逊、易趣和其他热门网站上使用该商标。

美国商标程序在美国，除一些有限的例外情况外，商标必须在商业活动中与所申请的商品或服务结合使用，才资格获得商标注册。根据《兰厄姆法案》的规定，美国专利和商标局（USPTO）会采信申请商标注册的人所提交的宣誓陈述内容。作为申请过程的一部分，申请人必须提交一份显示在申请截止日前在商业中就申请中所列或与其有关的商品或服务上使用了显示标记图像的“使用样本”，并附上申请人宣誓图像是真实的声明。对于产品，标记必须显示在产品本身或其包装、标签或标牌上。对于软件，可以显示在下载程序的链接。广告和宣传材料不符合要求。但广告和宣传材料可用于显示用于服务上的标记，但服务必须与该标记明确相关。每次申请必须至少附有一个样本。如申请涉及多个类别的商品和服务，则必须为每个类别提交一份样本。在某些情况下，美国专利商标局将要求所列出的每种产品都有一个样本。只要显示出正确使用，使用的样本将被接受。之后，申请将被“为征求异议的目的进行公告”。除非声称对标的商标享有优先权的第三方及时提交异议通知，而出现通常涉及都聘用律师的申请人和异议人间所进行相对耗时耗费的对抗程序外，申请将被进行登记。越来越多的商标注册是针对注册前从未使用过或未按要求使用过的商标而签发和维持的、但使用的样本实际上是赝品，且并不真正支持在美国商业中使用的主张。针对越来越多的商标申请在使用方面存在不准确且可能涉及欺诈性陈述的情况，美国专利商标局于 2019 年颁布了新的法规，规定外国申请人将不再能够在美国专利商标局代表自己，并且必须委任一名具有美国律师资格的律师。今年初，美国专利商标局要求所有申请人除了提及外部律师的地址外，并需提供每个申请的电子邮件地址。

消除欺诈性申请然而，欺诈性申请的问题依然存在。美国国会正在考虑为打击依赖伪造照片和伪造文件的商标申请的大量涌入订立法案。这些欺诈性的申请有一个不幸的副作用，那就使得合法的中国公司和代表合法的中国公司所提交的文件的真实性遭到怀疑。大多数来自中国的申请都是合法的。申请数量增加的部分原因是如国际商标协会和美国政府等贸易团体鼓励中国企业认真对待知识产权。

2020 年《商标现代化法案》旨在创造更好的作法，并赋予美国专利商标局审查人员更多的权力。审查人员在审查新申请时收集证据的权力（包括从第三方收集证据的权力）将被明文订入法案。这些规定是对许多带有篡改或可疑图像以意图作为显示申请商标有“实际使用”的申请书的因应措施。在许多情况下，审查人员在提出问题或要求提供详细资料后发现这些图像实际上并不支持申请中的主张。有些情况下，申请人试图通过提交先前存在的、经过数位修改的亚马逊或易趣列表的屏幕截图来证明商标在美国商业中的使用。为了打击使用数位更改的图像，美国专利局发起了“商标样本异议试点计划”。该计划允许第三方商标所有人在他们能够证明与新申请一起提交的图像已经被数位修改的时候。而如根据现行法律，即使发现欺诈行为，第三方仍然必须提起撤销程序，这对一些企业来说可能因昂贵的费用而不可行。拟议的法案将采取这一试点方案，并使之成为正式程序。

商标现代化法案程序《商标现代化法案》将制定新的撤销程序，允许合法商标所有人对看似欺诈性注册提出质疑，并要求终止这些在注册前未曾使用有关商标的商标注册。新的程序，即“请除和重新审查”，将会是往往耗时耗费的传统当事人间的撤销程序的替代办法。关于清除，将产生一新的《商标法》第 16A 条，该条文阐述如下：虽然现行法规中存在各种各样的“未使用”撤销依据，但现行法规中并未明确规定从未使用过商标的概念。由于法律要求在美国商业中使用“商标”，因此清除程序的前提是登记的主体应不包括从未用于特定的商品或服务的“标记”。该法案还制定了新的《商标法》第 16B 条，其规定对“包括提出在注册前的审查过程中有不当使用主张的商标的商标注册”的单方面重新审查程序。清除和单方面重新审查的主要区别在于，在重新审查的程序中注册人必须显示在注册发布之前已在美国有商业使用。在清除程序中，被质疑的注册人必须提供证据，有效显示其曾在美国商业中使用该商标。这些新的审查做法，以及更有效、更及时的程序来质疑注册商标欠缺使用的问题，将减轻因注册商标使用不当而不应被允许注册的商标注册所造成的新市场进入者的负担。此外，《商标现代化法案》促进了旨在在商标案件中保护消费者的补救措施。从历史上看，如果商标所有人在侵权诉讼中胜诉，则商标所有人将有权获得一项推定，即法院将裁定禁止竞争对手继续使用令人困惑的类似商标，以免消费者在商品或服务的来源上受到误导。不过，继美国联邦最高法院在专利侵权诉讼中裁定在这种情况下不能推定禁令就应被发出之后，易趣诉 MercExchange LLC，547 U.S. 388（2006 年），在证明商标侵权行为时是否可以推定已产生了不可弥补的损害的问题在巡回上诉法院中出现意见的分歧。该法案澄清，对于商标侵权行为，考虑到消费者保护方面的担忧，存在不可弥补损害已产生的可反驳推定。这项在共和党和民主党两党支持下的立法的实际效果是，商标申请人必须准备好提供切实可信的证据，证明消费者实际看到了带有申请商标的产品，或者所涉服务真正地使用所申请服务商标的进行推广。仿造模型，雏形和可疑的照片将不被接受。 Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

结论由于美国专利商标局遇到的许多有问题的商标申请都是由中国的申请人提出的，位于中国的公司应可期待被要求进行更多的审查，及要求确保使用证据是全面和完整的。申请人应准备好提供销售证据，如发票、提单或其他装运单据，以及产品、包装、标签或标牌上的标记图像。仅仅是宣传材料是不够的。申请人应避免提交任何来自第三方网站（如亚马逊或易趣）的使用证据。这些材料几乎可以肯定会在审查人员的心中造成疑问。

About This Newsletter 有关本期刊 Information contained in this newsletter is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult competent legal counsel. Holland & Knight lawyers are available to make presentations on a wide variety of China-related issues. 本期刊所刊载的信息仅供我们的读者为一般教育及学习目的使用。本期刊并不是为作为解决某一法律问题的唯一信息来源的目的所设计，也不应被如此使用。此外，每一法律管辖区域的法律各有不同且随时在改变。如您有关于某一特别事实情况的具体法律问题，我们建议您向合适的律师咨询。美国霍兰德奈特律师事务所的律师能够对许多与中国相关的问题提出他们的看法及建议。

About the Authors 关于本期作者 Thomas W. Brooke litigates and counsels clients on intellectual property and related issues. He has appeared in federal court all over the United States and managed litigation for clients in every major country. He handles matters involving trademark, copyright, trade secret and patent litigation, U.S. and foreign trademark and copyright protection and drafts license and technology transfer agreements. He regularly files and prosecutes new U.S. and international trademark applications and maintains and monitors registrations in the U.S. and around the world. Vito A. Costanzo has experience in the litigation of software and technology licensing disputes, infringement and misappropriation of intellectual property rights, trade secrets, breach of contract claims, real property rights, partnership disputes, wrongful termination, employment discrimination, and trust and estate litigation. He was formerly employed as a trial attorney by the Los Angeles County District Attorneys' office. He has conducted both jury and non-jury trials and appeals and has practiced before federal and state courts in California, federal courts in various states, the American Arbitration Association and J.A.M.S./Endispute. Seth J. Entin is a tax attorney who focuses his practice on international taxation. He was named Miami Lawyer of the Year in Tax Law for 2016 by The Best Lawyers in America guide. Mr. Entin has experience handling international taxation of high-net-worth individuals, international corporate taxation, Internal Revenue Service international tax audits and litigation, and offshore voluntary disclosures. Dariya V. Golubkova is a Washington, D.C., attorney and is a member of Holland & Knight's International Trade Group. Her practice comprises a broad range of international trade regulatory and transactional matters. Antonia I. Tzinova practices in the areas of international trade, foreign direct investment and industrial security. She advises on defense and high-technology exports; U.S. trade embargoes and economic sanctions; and customs matters. She regularly represents clients before the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and advises on measures to mitigate Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) in cross border mergers and acquisitions of U.S. government and defense contractors. Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

Contact Our China Practice Attorneys | 与我们的 China Practice 律师联系 Primary Contacts 主要联系人： Hongjun Zhang, Ph.D. 张红军博士 Washington, D.C. +1.202.457.5906 hongjun.zhang@hklaw.com

Mike Chiang 蒋尚仁律师 San Francisco +1.415.743.6968 mike.chiang@hklaw.com

Juan M. Alcala | Austin +1.512.954.6515 juan.alcala@hklaw.com

Adolfo Jimenez | Miami +1.305.789.7720 adolfo.jimenez@hklaw.com

Robert Ricketts | London +44.20.7071.9910 robert.ricketts@hklaw.com

Leonard A. Bernstein | Philadelphia +1.215.252.9521 leonard.bernstein@hklaw.com

Sophie Jin | Washington, D.C. +1.202.469.5179 sophie.jin@hklaw.com

Luis Rubio Barnetche | Mexico City +52.55.3602.8006 luis.rubio@hklaw.com

Christopher W. Boyett | Miami +1.305.789.7790 christopher.boyett.@hklaw.com

Roth Kehoe | Atlanta +1.404.817.8519 roth.kehoe@hklaw.com

Evan S. Seideman | Stamford +1.203.905.4518 evan.seideman@hklaw.com

Vito A. Costanzo | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2409 vito.costanzo@hklaw.com

Robert J. Labate | San Francisco +1.415.743.6991 robert.labate@hklaw.com

Jeffrey R. Seul | Boston +1.617.305.2121 jeff.seul@hklaw.com

Josias N. Dewey | Miami +1.305.789.7746 joe.dewey@hklaw.com

Alejandro Landa Thierry | Mexico City +52.55.3602.8002 alejandro.landa@hklaw.com

Vivian Thoreen | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2482 vivian.thoreen@hklaw.com

R. David Donoghue | Chicago +1.312.578.6553 david.donoghue@hklaw.com

Jeffrey W. Mittleman | Boston +1.617.854.1411 jeffrey.mittleman@hklaw.com

Shawn M. Turner | Denver +1.303.974.6645 shawn.turner@hklaw.com

Jonathan M. Epstein | Washington, D.C. +1.202.828.1870 jonathan.epstein@hklaw.com

Anita M. Mosner | Washington, D.C. +1.202.419.2604 anita.mosner@hklaw.com

Matthew P. Vafidis | San Francisco +1.415.743.6950 matthew.vafidis@hklaw.com

Leonard H. Gilbert | Tampa +1.813.227.6481 leonard.gilbert@hklaw.com

Ronald A. Oleynik | Washington, D.C. +1.202.457.7183 ron.oleynik@hklaw.com

Stacey H. Wang | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2480 stacey.wang@hklaw.com

Enrique Gomez-Pinzon | Bogotá +57.1.745.5800 enrique.gomezpinzon@hklaw.com

Douglas A. Praw | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2588 doug.praw@hklaw.com

Charles A. Weiss | New York +1.212.513.3551 charles.weiss@hklaw.com

Paul J. Jaskot | Philadelphia +1.215.252.9539 paul.jaskot@hklaw.com

John F. Pritchard | New York +1.212.513.3233 john.pritchard@hklaw.com

Jose V. Zapata | Bogotá +57.1.745.5940 jose.zapata@hklaw.com