Eight hours to respond when an authority in another EU Member State requests your customers’ data

IP & Data

October 15, 2026

Data & Tech

Morning from Hell

It is eight o’clock in the morning when an email lands in your company’s General Counsel’s inbox. A prosecutor in another EU Member State is requesting access to your customer’s messages as part of an investigation into serious fraud, and you have eight hours to respond. In the past, such a request would have gone through a slow mutual legal assistance process and could have taken weeks or months. Now it may be sent directly to your company, without the involvement of the authorities in your home country, and the clock is ticking.

This is the so-called E-evidence Regulation, formally Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 on European Production Orders and European Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal proceedings. The Regulation has applied since 18 August 2026. Under it, an authority in one Member State may, in criminal proceedings, order a service provider established in another Member State to produce or preserve electronic evidence, regardless of where the data is located. The authority may address the service provider directly, without involving the authorities in the service provider’s home country. The Regulation does not apply only to major technology companies. It may also apply to a Finnish or other European SaaS, hosting or cloud service provider that offers services in more than one Member State and stores user data.

For the purposes of the Regulation, service providers include in particular:

providers of electronic communications services, such as telecommunications operators and providers of email and messaging services;
providers of internet domain name and IP numbering services, such as domain name registries and registrars and providers of WHOIS data; and
other information society services that enable users to communicate with one another or store data on their behalf, such as cloud storage services, online marketplaces and social media platforms.

In short, the Regulation may also apply to your business, not only to technology giants, if you provide digital services in more than one EU Member State and process or store user data. The good news is that an organisation can navigate an eight-hour deadline successfully, provided it has determined in advance who is responsible for responding to an order and which grounds for refusal may be invoked where necessary. Below, we highlight three of the Regulation’s most critical requirements.

Key practical implications

These are the first three requirements to understand.

Short response times mean that, as a rule, the requested data must be produced within ten days. In emergency cases, however, the deadline may be as short as eight hours.
The preservation obligation means that, upon receiving a European Preservation Order Certificate (EPOC-PR), the addressee must preserve the requested data without undue delay until it can be produced. The obligation generally remains in force for 60 days and may be extended by a further 30 days.
A significant risk of penalties means that failure to comply with an order without an accepted justification may result in a financial penalty of up to 2% of the service provider’s total worldwide annual turnover.

What is the regulation about?

Under Article 3 of the Regulation, an order is addressed directly to the service provider’s designated establishment or legal representative in another Member State. The order must be necessary and proportionate and may therefore be issued only if a similar order could have been issued under the same conditions in a comparable domestic case. In practice, for example, a Finnish prosecutor may obtain data directly from a service provider established in Sweden or Ireland without involving the authorities of that country.

Two Instruments, Two Purposes

Article 3 of the Regulation distinguishes between two instruments: the European Production Order and the European Preservation Order. A European Production Order enables an authority to require the immediate production of data, such as subscriber data, traffic data or content data. A European Preservation Order is a more limited and temporary measure requiring the addressee to preserve the requested data without undue delay until it can be produced. Under Article 11 of the Regulation, the preservation obligation generally ceases after 60 days unless the issuing authority confirms that a subsequent request for production has been issued. The period may be extended by a further 30 days where necessary.

In practice, a European Preservation Order therefore freezes the data, giving the authority time to seek a European Production Order or use the mutual legal assistance procedure.

What about individual rights?

The new powers inevitably raise questions about privacy, and the Regulation therefore includes several safeguards. An order must be necessary and proportionate, and the person whose data is requested has the right to effective remedies to challenge the order throughout the criminal proceedings in which the data is used.

Under Article 12 of the Regulation, the service provider or the authority of the enforcing State may also invoke grounds for refusal in certain circumstances. These may apply, for example, where the data is protected by journalistic source protection or another privilege or immunity, where enforcement would manifestly breach a fundamental right, where it would be contrary to the ne bis in idem principle, or where the conduct under investigation does not constitute an offence in the enforcing State. These safeguards help ensure that the accelerated cross-border procedure does not undermine fundamental rights or the core legal principles of the enforcing State.

Why the regulation may apply to your organisation

As the opening scenario shows, this is not a theoretical risk. An order may arrive unexpectedly and require action within a very short timeframe. Service providers operating in the EU should review, at the latest now, how their organisation identifies and handles European Production Orders and European Preservation Orders, who is responsible for them, the applicable deadlines, the grounds on which they may be challenged and how any grounds for refusal can be invoked in time. If the addressee cannot produce the requested data, for example because the certificate is incomplete, it must inform the issuing authority without undue delay and request clarification.

A service provider may also claim reimbursement from the issuing State for costs incurred in responding to an order, where the national law of that State provides for such reimbursement. For authorities, the reform creates a new and faster route for obtaining electronic evidence. At the same time, it requires careful consideration of the fundamental rights and legal remedies available to the client when challenging an order.

What is Morning from Hell? Morning from Hell is Eversheds Sutherland’s way of challenging companies to identify their most critical business risks before they turn into a crisis.

Key contacts

Otto Michelsen

Senior Associate

+358 50 491 2292

otto.michelsen@eversheds.fi

Otto Michelsen is an expert in ICT contracts, data protection, and the legal aspects of emerging technologies. He is particularly skilled at guiding clients through data protection compliance, handling authority inquiries, and managing data-related disputes. Otto actively monitors the evolving EU data regulatory landscape and advises international organizations on how upcoming regulations impact their operations. He also supports companies in establishing effective data governance practices.

In addition, Otto has hands-on experience in building compliance programs and navigating complex scenarios involving sanctions legislation.

He holds the CIPP/E and CIPM certifications in data protection, awarded by the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP).

Heinonen & Co and Eversheds Sutherland recognized in WTR Copyright 1000 2026

IP & Data

October 12, 2026

Heinonen & Co and Eversheds Sutherland have been recognized as recommended firms for copyright in Finland in the first edition of the WTR Copyright 1000. Partner Petteri Häkkänen is also listed as a recommended individual.

The guide is based on in-depth market research and is widely used by companies looking for specialist copyright advice. According to WTR, the firm’s team advises Finnish and international businesses on protecting, commercializing and enforcing their copyright assets, combining strategic advice with substantial litigation experience.

The guide also highlights how the team works as part of the firm’s wider intellectual property practice, helping clients whose creative assets sit alongside trademark, design and technology portfolios.

Petteri Häkkänen, who heads the Finnish IP practice, is recognized for his work on complex intellectual property disputes and long-term rights protection strategies. In addition to representing clients in demanding litigation, he helps businesses build practical ways to manage and make use of their intellectual property, drawing on his extensive academic writing and publishing textbooks in the field.

We warmly thank our clients and partners for their trust and feedback!

Key contacts

Petteri Häkkänen

Attorney-at-Law, Partner, Head of IP team, Managing Partner of Heinonen & Co

+358 40 745 7193

petteri.hakkanen@eversheds.fi

@https://fi.linkedin.com/pub/petteri-h%C3%A4kk%C3%A4nen/40/530/7a9

Petteri Häkkänen leads our IP practice with his extensive experience in handling high-profile IP matters. He excels in managing complex legal proceedings concerning all industrial rights, as well as in the preceding conflict management investigations and protection strategies. Petteri typically handles intricate trademark or patent infringement cases, often involving significant cross-border aspects. Additionally, he advises on matters related to trade secrets and unfair business practices.

Creative Borrowing or Infringement of Rights? The Intersection of Pastiche and Parody Exceptions and Trademark Infringement

IP & Data

September 15, 2026

Morning from Hell

Creativity is a competitive advantage, provided that its legal boundaries are understood. Drawing the line between permissible creative borrowing and infringement of rights raises a number of questions. In this article, we review the Court of Justice of the European Union’s recent judgment on pastiche and other practical examples of how creative borrowing, copyright, and trademark protection intersect, and how risks can be managed already at the planning stage.

Creative content is at the core of modern business. Companies, entrepreneurs, and public figures are making even bolder use of brands, visual communications, and cultural references in their marketing. At the same time, drawing the line between permissible creative borrowing and infringement of rights continues to raise questions.

In spring 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down its long-awaited judgment on the pastiche exception. The judgment clarified when the creative use of an existing work (e.g., sampling) may be permissible without the permission of the copyright holder. At the same time, case law reminds us that freedom under copyright law does not necessarily mean freedom from trademark infringement.

In business, it is therefore not enough to assess plans solely from a copyright perspective. Instead, plans should be examined comprehensively from an intellectual property perspective, including trademark considerations.

Protection for a Sample?

In Case C-590/23 (Pelham), the issue was whether phonogram producers had the right to prohibit electronic music producers from sampling an approximately two-second rhythmic sequence from the 1977 song Metall auf Metall in the song Nur mir, released in 1997, or whether the pastiche exception permitted that use. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that:

The exception for pastiche does not have a catch-all nature and does not cover all artistic interaction with earlier works.
Pastiche covers creations that evoke one or more existing works but are noticeably different from them, and that use distinctive elements protected by copyright to participate in a recognizable artistic or creative dialogue.
An artistic dialogue may take the form of stylistic imitation, homage, or humorous or critical interaction.
The exception does not cover concealed imitation or plagiarism.
Legal assessment does not require proof of subjective intent. It is sufficient that persons familiar with the original work can recognize the work’s pastiche character.

The judgment is particularly significant for the music, advertising, and content industries: it confirms that sampling and other creative borrowing may be permissible under the pastiche exception, provided that they constitute to recognizable artistic dialogue and not concealed copying. The judgment is a logical continuation of the judgment concerning the parody exception, C-201/13 (Deckmyn), in which the key conditions for parody were (i) a reference to an existing work, but (ii) a noticeable departure from it, and (iii) the expression of humor or mockery.

Parody Does Not Exempt One from Trademark Infringement

The parody and pastiche exceptions under copyright law have no equivalent in the trademark legislation originating from the EU. For example, Finnish trademark legislation does not recognize parody or pastiche exceptions under which the use of a sign giving rise to a likelihood of confusion or otherwise infringing trademark rights could be considered permissible.

The Market Court decision MAO:374/16 concerned an air freshener marketed by the Finnish music group Justimus that closely resembled the well-known tree-shaped WUNDER-BAUM air freshener, as well as the appearance of a character dressed in a WUNDERBOY tree costume in the WUNDERBOY music video. The air fresheners used a similar tree-shaped silhouette, a similar font, a red background, and white text. The Market Court held that the group had infringed trademark rights both through the air freshener and through the WUNDERBOY tree-costumed character appearing in the music video.

Although the activity may have been motivated by a creative or parodic purpose, the sale of physically similar products bearing signs giving rise to a likelihood of confusion constituted trademark infringement. The decision illustrates that parodic expression recognized in copyright law does not in itself eliminate potential trademark infringement.

Artistic Expression or Trademark Infringement of a Luxury Brand?

The decision of the Paris court RG 23/15690 (3 June 2026), issued in summer 2026, concerned the activities of an art gallery called Le Bidon français, in which Hermès’s registered trademarks were used without permission on various products. The art gallery sold products such as industrial canisters, fire extinguishers, chairs, skateboards, and figurines to which Hermès trademarks had been affixed, including the word mark ”HERMES” and a figurative mark consisting of the letter H. The products ranged in price from EUR 60 to EUR 449, and were sold through websites and Instagram. The defendant invoked freedom of artistic expression and argued that the products were art that “turns well-known brands upside down.” The court held that the use constituted trademark infringement. The defense of artistic expression was rejected because the marks were used for the commercial marketing and sale of the products, hashtags such as ”#hermes” were used in Instagram marketing, and the product names referred directly to the brand. The use was considered to create the impression of a commercial connection between Hermès and the art gallery.

Accordingly, the defense of artistic expression does not protect the use of a sign when that use is primarily commercial.

Managing Risks Already at the Planning Stage

The Court of Justice of the European Union’s judgment on pastiche opens up new possibilities for artistic expression, but the Wunderbaum and Hermès cases remind us that trademark protection remains intact regardless of how creative the use is considered to be. The message is clear: creativity is a competitive advantage, but its safe use requires legal foresight.

Copyright and trademark law are two separate systems in which the applicable rules and defenses are independent of one another. Every company and entrepreneur who, without the express permission of the rights holder, refers to third-party brands or creations must assess both systems separately.

Before launching a new product, campaign, or creative concept, it is therefore advisable to:

already at the concept stage, ascertain whether the product, campaign, or content contains references to third-party creations (e.g. music, images, design) or brands (e.g. names, logos, signs, product shapes);
assess whether a reference to a copyright-protected creation requires the rights holder’s permission or whether the pastiche or parody exception applies;
assess the impact of trademarks separately and examine whether the planned content includes registered or established trademarks;
assess the commercial nature of the use (does the content create the impression of a commercial connection with the owner of another brand, and are trademarks used in product names, hashtags, or marketing materials in a manner suggesting collaboration), because the defense of artistic expression fails if the use is primarily commercial;
assess whether any exception or defense under trademark law applies; and
document the stages and purpose of the planning work.

A Safe Landing on the Market

The pastiche or parody exceptions under copyright law do not exempt one from trademark infringement, nor do exceptions under trademark law exempt one from copyright infringement. It is therefore advisable to seek a preliminary assessment from a specialist who can help identify risks that may not be apparent in an internal process. A preliminary assessment is considerably less expensive and less time-consuming than litigation, withdrawing products from the market, or changing a global campaign.

A proactive IPR assessment before launches is effective risk management: it helps avoid subsequent disputes, saves time and costs, and protects the company’s reputation. At its best, an IPR assessment is not an obstacle to creativity, but a tool that helps bring creative ideas to market safely.

Our firm’s IPR team assists companies with matters at the intersection of copyright and trademark law, whether the issue concerns a preliminary assessment, obtaining protection, defending rights, or countering infringement allegations. If the themes of this article have raised questions in relation to your business, we would be pleased to discuss them with you.

What is Morning from Hell? Morning from Hell is Eversheds Sutherland’s way of challenging companies to identify their most critical business risks before they turn into a crisis.

Key contacts

Lassi Lepistö

Attorney-at-Law, Partner
Helsinki

+ 358 50 527 3459

lassi.lepisto@eversheds.fi

@https://www.linkedin.com/in/lassilepisto/

Lassi Lepistö specialises in intellectual property, advising Finnish and international companies across a wide range of IP matters. He is part of Eversheds Sutherland’s global IP practice and also works through Eversheds Sutherland Finland’s subsidiary and IP arm Heinonen & Co.

Ronja Taipale

Associate
Helsinki

+358 40 411 6252

ronja.taipale@eversheds.fi

Ronja works in our IP, Data & Technology team, advising clients primarily on intellectual property matters.

She focuses primarily on disputes and contracts involving trademarks, trade names, copyright, domain rights, and design rights. She assists clients in protecting, exploiting, and enforcing their intellectual property rights, and drafts and negotiates IP-related agreements. Ronja has experience in both domestic and cross-border matters across a range of industries.

Directive (EU) 2024/825 on empowering consumers for the green transition – how will the new directive affect marketing regulations and companies’ obligations?

IP & Data

August 18, 2026

ESG

Morning from Hell

The Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive ((EU) 2024/825) tightens the regulation of environmental claims and increases companies’ disclosure obligations. The objective of the Directive is to prevent greenwashing, i.e. untruthful and misleading sustainability communications, and to strengthen consumer confidence in environmental claims. Companies should promptly assess whether their marketing practices meet the upcoming requirements.

The Directive entered into force on 26 March 2024, and Member States were required to transpose it into national legislation by 27 March 2026. The new rules apply from 27 September 2026. In Finland, the Government Proposal (HE 47/2026) was submitted to Parliament on 9 April 2026. The Directive’s marketing-related amendments are reflected in Finland primarily as changes to the marketing provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

Additionally, Finland has ordained a six-month transitional period for products and packaging materials already in stock. Without such a transitional period, the original application timeline could have resulted in costs of up to hundreds of millions of euros for Finnish companies due to product and packaging waste, if they would not be allowed to sell products already in stock. The transitional period has been enacted by Government Decree 664/2026. In accordance with the transitional period, certain legislative amendments required by the Directive will become fully part of national legislation by 27 March 2027.

Restrictions on the Use of Generic Environmental Claims

Potentially the most significant change introduced by the Directive concerns generic environmental claims used in marketing. A generic environmental claim refers to any environmental claim made in written or oral form, including through audiovisual media, that is not included on a sustainability label and where the specification of the claim is not provided in clear and prominent terms on the same medium. Brand, product and company names may also constitute a generic environmental claim.

Going forward, the use of generic environmental claims such as “environmentally friendly”, “green”, “eco” or “climate friendly” is, in principle, prohibited. Such claims are permitted only if a recognized excellent environmental performance can be demonstrated in support thereto, for example by means of an EU Ecolabel or an equivalent officially recognized environmental labelling scheme.

However, a generic claim may be made if its content is clearly and prominently specified in the same medium of communication. For example, the claim “100% of the energy used in the manufacture of the packaging comes from renewable sources” is permissible, whereas a mere claim of “climate friendly packaging” is generally not.

It is important for companies to note that the definition of an environmental claim in the Directive is remarkably broad. An environmental claim may be a message presented in any form which states or implies, for example, that a product or company has a positive impact or zero impact on the environment, or that it is less damaging to the environment than other products or companies. Accordingly, the definition of an environmental claim may also apply to colors, nature-depicting symbols and other visual elements, if they can be considered to create an impression relating to, for example, environmental friendliness in the mind of the consumer.

Uncertified Sustainability Labels

Sustainability labels may only be used if they are based on an independent and objective certification scheme or a scheme established by a public authority. A company’s own uncertified sustainability labels are not permitted.

Presenting a Partial Feature as a Feature of the Entire Product or Company

An environmental claim must not be presented in such a manner that it gives the consumer the impression that it relates to the environmental features of the entire product or company, when the claim concerns only a certain aspect of the product or a specific activity of the company.

Carbon Neutrality Claims Based on Offsetting

It is prohibited to make claims such as “carbon neutral”, “climate neutral” or “CO₂ neutral” about a product if the claim is based on greenhouse gas emission offsets outside the value chain and not on the product’s actual life cycle impacts. Companies may still communicate about emissions credit projects and investments in environmental initiatives, but claims relating to these must not be presented as an environmental feature of the product.

Marketing Statutory Requirements as a Distinctive Advantage

A company must not present as a competitive advantage a feature that is based on a statutory requirement applicable to all comparable products. For example, the claim “does not contain X” may be prohibited if the substance in question is already banned by law in the relevant product category.

Future-Related Environmental Claims

Claims based on future environmental objectives, such as “carbon neutral by 2030″, are not automatically prohibited. However, they may be misleading unless they are supported by publicly available, verifiable and measurable commitments together with a detailed implementation plan. In addition, progress towards the objectives must be monitored by an independent third-party expert.

New Disclosure Obligations

The Directive also creates new disclosure obligations, particularly concerning the provision of information on the durability and repairability of products.

All commercial communication concerning a product that contains a feature introduced to limit the product’s durability is prohibited despite information on the feature and its effects on durability being available to the trader. In addition, it is prohibited to make a false claim about a certain durability of a product in terms of usage time or intensity under normal conditions of use.

For products containing digital elements, consumers must be informed of the minimum period during which software updates will be provided. In addition, an update must not be presented as necessary if it merely enhances functionality features.

Where a manufacturer offers a commercial durability guarantee covering the entire product for a period exceeding two years and has made the relevant information available to the trader, the trader must inform the consumer thereof by means of a harmonized GARAN label.

Regarding repairability, information must be provided on the reparability score that may be established by the EU, or alternatively on the availability of spare parts, repair instructions, costs, and any restrictions related to repair. It is prohibited to present a product as allowing repair when it does not.

Impact on Corporate Communications and Marketing

As set out above, the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive imposes significant and concrete requirements on corporate communications from the coming autumn onwards. Companies should, before 27 September 2026 at the latest, do the following:

review all marketing materials and identify and examine any environmental claims contained therein;
assess whether existing or planned brand, product and company names or marketing imagery create environmental impressions for consumers;
discontinue offset-based carbon neutrality, climate neutrality and equivalent claims, or adapt them to comply with the regulations;
ensure the regulatory compliance of sustainability labels in use;
properly document future environmental commitments;
update product information, packaging and sales channel communications (e.g. websites) to comply with the new disclosure obligations; and
train marketing, sales and product development personnel on the new requirements.

The new regulation is also offering companies an opportunity to strengthen the credibility of their sustainability communications as well as consumer confidence in the company and its products. Our experts are happy to assist in assessing risks related to environmental claims, sustainability labels and sustainability communications, as well as in identifying any necessary changes well in advance of the regulation entering into force.

What is Morning from Hell? Morning from Hell is Eversheds Sutherland’s way of challenging companies to identify their most critical business risks before they turn into a crisis.

Key contacts

Katariina Kokkonen

Associate
Helsinki

+358 50 369 5409

katariina.kokkonen@eversheds.fi

@https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/en/finland/people/www.linkedin.com/in/katariina-kokkonen-885077391

Katariina Kokkonen works in our IP, Data & Technology team, assisting clients with matters related to intellectual property, particularly trademarks, trade names, design rights, and marketing law.

Roosa Teittinen

Associate
Helsinki

+358 44 333 0697

roosa.teittinen@eversheds.fi

@https://www.linkedin.com/in/roosa-teittinen/

Roosa assists our clients in matters related to intellectual property rights and marketing law.

She focuses in particular on disputes and agreements concerning trademarks, trade names, copyrights and design rights. Roosa also advises on disputes relating to marketing, advertising and corporate communications, including cases involving unfair business practices.

Roosa advises a broad range of both domestic and international clients.

Heinonen & Co and Eversheds Sutherland among the top performers in IP STARS 2026

IP & Data

June 25, 2026

Heinonen & Co and Eversheds Sutherland have once again been recognized in the prestigious IP STARS 2026 rankings for intellectual property. We are the only law firm in Finland ranked in all five categories assessed, and three of them at the highest Tier 1 level.

IP STARS is a respected international publication that lists the world’s leading intellectual property specialists and firms. The rankings are based on extensive market research, client feedback and assessments by industry experts.

In the 2026 rankings, we were placed as follows:

Copyright & related rights – Tier 1
Trade mark disputes – Tier 1
Trade mark prosecution (law firms) – Tier 1
Patent disputes – Tier 2
Patent prosecution – Tier 3

The rankings also recognised several of our experts. These recognitions span both established leaders in the field and rising talent, reflecting the depth and continuity of IP expertise. We are proud that our work earns recognition year after year – a warm thank you to our clients for their trust and to our team for their excellent work!