On July 31, 2025, the Supreme People’s Court issued and implemented the Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Labor Dispute Cases (“Judicial Interpretation (II)”), which came into effect on September 1, 2025. Article 5 of this Interpretation provides that “a lawfully established representative office of a foreign enterprise may serve as a party in labor dispute cases. Where a party applies to add the foreign enterprise as a co-defendant, the People’s Court shall grant support in accordance with the law.” This provision marks the first time that the litigation capacity of foreign enterprises’ representative offices (“representative offices”) in labor dispute cases has been explicitly recognized. It also establishes a clear legal basis for employees to request the joinder of foreign parent companies as co-defendants. This development not only signifies the further improvement of China’s labor law system concerning foreign-related matters but also imposes higher compliance requirements on multinational enterprises operating in China.

In practice, if a trademark applicant fails to accurately assess the degree of similarity between a proposed mark and a prior mark, the application is highly likely to be rejected or opposed. It is therefore necessary, within a framework of normative interpretation, to conduct a systematic analysis of the standards, methodologies, and relevant factors for determining whether trademarks are identical or similar.

Recently, the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council issued the Opinions on Accelerating the Establishment of a Long-Term Care Insurance System, marking China’s long-term care insurance (LTCI) system entering a stage of full-scale advancement. As an important component of the social security system, this policy not only concerns public welfare but will also have a profound impact on corporate labor cost structures and human resources management. For enterprises, it is particularly critical to understand the policy framework in advance and prepare accordingly.

India has become one of the most attractive destinations for foreign investment. Its large consumer base, expanding economy, and growing digital infrastructure present significant opportunities. However, entering the Indian market requires careful planning and a clear understanding of legal, regulatory, and commercial factors. Foreign investors must approach this market with a structured strategy to ensure long term success.

Recently, chat records claiming that a major internet company used AI to replace some positions, resulting in large-scale layoffs, went viral online. Although such chat records should not be readily believed, we strongly recommend that you learn relevant knowledge about layoffs in advance.

Shreya Dalal, Associate Partner - MHCO India’s corporate framework offers multiple business structures, yet the private limited company remains one of the most widely adopted forms. A key reason lies in how Private Limited Company Liability in India is structured...

The right to access the courts and pursue legal remedies is a protected principle under UAE law. However, that right is not unlimited. When litigation or enforcement procedures are used in bad faith, supported by deception, or pursued in a manner that unlawfully harms another party, UAE law may permit a claim for compensation.

Consumer protection law is designed to correct imbalance. It gives consumers a shield against better-informed, better-organised traders, especially in distance selling, where the consumer cannot inspect the service or negotiate face to face. In a recent judgment, the Court of Justice of the European Union addressed three highly important issues relating to consumer protection law. Does the use of a professional intermediary affect consumer status? What exactly qualifies as a distance contract? What limits the exercise of the right of withdrawal? We analyse the judgement below.

Cross-border employment relationships frequently raise complex questions regarding the law applicable to employment contracts. What qualifies as the employee’s habitual place of work if the place of work changes during the course of the employment relationship? The Court of Justice of the European Union had to answer this question in the Locatrans case which we analyse below.
ILF’s Hungarian member, Smartlegal Schmidt&Partners summarizes this issue in the article.

The Supreme Court in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr., has clarified the jurisdiction of Internal Complaints Committees (“ICC”) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”). The Court held that the ICC constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman is competent to inquire into a complaint even when the respondent is employed in a different department or organisation. The expression “where the respondent is an employee” in Section 11 of the POSH Act was interpreted as procedural and not as a jurisdictional limitation. The Court further held that surrendering jurisdiction to the ICC of the respondent’s department would defeat the remedial purpose of the statute and create barriers for victims seeking redress.