“October is the fallen leaf, but it is also a wider horizon more clearly seen” – Hal Borland |
Dear Reinhard,
As October arrives, this month’s newsletter looks at a diverse mix of legal, business, and cultural developments making headlines at home and abroad. From an upcoming U.S. market-entry seminar in Munich and questions surrounding increasingly autonomous AI to First Amendment protections, election preparedness, and even Taylor Swift’s latest trademark dispute, there is plenty to explore this month.
In this issue, we touch on the following topics:
- Erfolgsmarkt USA: GABA Returns to Munich for U.S. Market Entry Seminar
- When AI Stops Following Instructions: Why OpenAI Shelved GPT-6.1 Astra
- Are You Ready to Vote? Check Your Registration Before the Deadline
- Freedom of the Press: What Does the First Amendment Actually Protect?
- Even Taylor Swift Can’t Trademark Everything
We hope you enjoy this month’s newsletter.
Best, |
|
Reinhard von Hennigs & Your Team at BridgehouseLaw LLP |
|
Erfolgsmarkt USA GABA Returns to Munich for U.S. Market Entry Seminar
For German companies considering expansion into the United States, entering the world’s largest economy can create significant opportunities, but successfully establishing and growing a U.S. operation requires understanding a very different legal, tax, employment, banking, insurance, and regulatory environment.
On November 10, 2026, the German American Business Association (GABA) will return to Munich for its “Erfolgsmarkt USA” U.S. Market Entry Seminar, bringing together experienced German-American professionals for a full day of practical guidance designed for companies planning or evaluating expansion into the United States.
The Munich program will take participants through many of the critical decisions companies face when entering the U.S. market, including choosing between an Inc. and LLC, establishing a U.S. subsidiary, selecting a location, understanding U.S. taxation and investment structures, banking and financing, recruiting and employing personnel, visas and work authorization, insurance, economic-development incentives, and protecting the German parent company from potential U.S. liability.
BridgehouseLaw Chairman Reinhard von Hennigs, who also serves as Vice Chairman of GABA, will again be among the seminar’s speakers. His sessions will address U.S. company formation and choice of legal entity, visas and work authorization, and strategies for protecting German parent companies from U.S. liability. Reinhard advises clients on U.S., German, and European law, including international business transactions, foreign direct investment, company formation, immigration, business visas, and corporate-sponsored green cards.
What distinguishes the GABA seminars is their practical, interdisciplinary approach. Rather than examining U.S. expansion solely from a legal or financial perspective, the program brings together professionals with experience across law, tax, banking, human resources, insurance, site selection, economic development, and business operations. The objective is to give decision-makers a clearer picture of how these issues interact before significant investments are made.
For companies already operating in the United States, GABA will also hold its Risk Management Seminar in Munich on November 11, focusing on issues such as U.S. litigation and product liability, corporate governance, taxation, transfer pricing, employment and HR, insurance, acquisitions, and the continued development of a U.S. subsidiary.
The November seminars continue GABA’s longstanding mission of helping German businesses approach the U.S. market with practical knowledge, experienced advisers, and a better understanding of both the opportunities and risks that come with doing business in America.
Munich - November 10, 2026: U.S. Market Entry Munich - November 11, 2026: Risk Management
Learn more and register for the November 10 Munich seminar
|
|
|
When AI STOPS Following Instructions: Why OpenAI Shelved GPT-6.1 Astra
Artificial intelligence is rapidly moving beyond simply answering questions. The newest generation of AI systems can browse the internet, write and execute code, use software, and carry out complex tasks with increasingly limited human supervision. But what happens when an AI system becomes capable enough to act, and does not always stay within the boundaries it was given?
That question became particularly relevant in late September when OpenAI reportedly scrapped the planned public release of GPT-6.1 Astra, a new model that had been expected to launch in October. According to reporting by Reuters, internal safety testing found that the model did not consistently meet OpenAI’s standards for remaining within the authorized scope of a task and accurately communicating what actions it had taken. Testing reportedly identified deceptive or evasive behavior, including instances in which the model did not accurately disclose its actions.
The development follows the September release of GPT-6 Astra, which OpenAI describes as its first broadly deployed model to reach the company’s “Critical” cybersecurity capability threshold. According to OpenAI, with appropriate tools and access, Astra can identify previously unknown vulnerabilities and develop ways to exploit them across well-protected systems without requiring a human to direct each individual step. That capability led the company to introduce significantly stronger safeguards, including stricter isolation, monitoring, and additional alignment evaluations.
These concerns are not entirely theoretical. OpenAI has recently disclosed a framework for reporting instances of “model misalignment”, unexpected or concerning behavior in which an AI system's actions depart from what humans intended. The company says the framework is intended to make such incidents more systematically and rapidly public as AI systems become more capable.
Recent incidents involving experimental AI agents have intensified the discussion. OpenAI disclosed that its models interacted with U.S. government websites in unintended ways, although it said private information and credentials were not compromised in the disclosed incidents. Independent researchers have also reported attempts by AI agents to interact improperly with government systems.
For that reason, describing these systems simply as having “gone rogue” may make for an attention-grabbing headline, but it misses the more important issue. The systems are not necessarily behaving with human motives or intentions. The concern is that increasingly autonomous software can pursue a task in an unexpected way, exceed the authority its user intended to provide, circumvent restrictions, or inaccurately describe what it has done.
What does this mean for businesses? Well, for businesses adopting AI, the lesson extends far beyond OpenAI. An employee using a traditional AI chatbot generally receives information and decides what to do with it. An AI agent, however, may be given access to email, files, databases, websites, financial systems, or other software and then permitted to take actions on the user's behalf.
That creates an entirely different category of risk.
If an AI agent sends an unauthorized communication, accesses information it was not supposed to access, enters into a transaction, exposes confidential information, or takes some other unintended action, who bears responsibility? The employee? The employer? The software provider? And what happens when the organization cannot readily determine exactly what the AI did?
Those questions are becoming increasingly important as businesses integrate autonomous AI into everyday operations.
Companies should therefore think about AI governance in much the same way they think about permissions for employees and information systems: What can the system access? What can it do? What requires human approval? What actions are logged? And who is responsible for reviewing what it has done?
OpenAI's decision not to release GPT-6.1 Astra provides an important reminder that greater capability does not automatically mean greater reliability. As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly capable of acting rather than merely answering, businesses may need to pay just as much attention to controlling what AI is permitted to do as they do to deciding which AI tools to use.
The next chapter of AI may not simply be about what machines know, it may be about what we allow them to do.
Dathan D'Agostino, BridgehouseLaw, Charlotte image: Adobe Stock |
|
|
Are You Ready to Vote? Check Your Registration BEFORE the October 9 Deadline
Election Day may still be several weeks away, but North Carolina voters have an important deadline approaching much sooner. The 2026 General Election will be held Tuesday, November 3, and the regular deadline to register to vote in North Carolina is 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 9, 2026.
Even if you have voted in previous elections, now is a good time to take a few minutes to verify that your voter registration is active, accurate, and associated with your current address.
North Carolina continuously maintains its voter registration rolls in accordance with state and federal law. Registrations can be removed for a number of reasons, including a voter moving to another county or state, death, duplicate registrations, certain felony convictions, a successful voter challenge, or, in specific circumstances, an extended period without voting or contact with election officials.
The purpose of this process is to maintain accurate voter rolls, and the State Board says its procedures are designed to prevent eligible voters from being removed by mistake. Nevertheless, checking your own record before an election is an easy way to make sure there are no surprises when it is time to vote.
North Carolina's official Voter Search allows you to check your registration status, Election Day polling place, voting districts, voter history and, when available, your sample ballot.
Check Your North Carolina Voter Registration
What if something is wrong? If your address or other registration information has changed, don't wait until Election Day to investigate it. Existing voters can update their registration, and eligible North Carolinians who are not currently registered can submit a new registration before the regular October 9 deadline.
Missing October 9 does not necessarily mean missing the election. North Carolina permits eligible individuals to register and vote at the same time during the in-person early voting period, which runs from October 15 through 3:00 p.m. October 31. Same-day registrants must meet the eligibility requirements and provide proof of residence.
Mark These Dates October 9 at 5:00 p.m. - Regular voter-registration deadline October 15 - In-person early voting begins; same-day registration available October 20 at 5:00 p.m. - Absentee-ballot request deadline for most voters October 31 at 3:00 p.m. - In-person early voting ends November 3 - Election Day
Regardless of your political views or the candidates you support, your ability to make your own choice begins with making sure you are properly registered to vote.
It takes only a few minutes. Check your status now, correct any outdated information, and know where and when you plan to vote.
BridgehouseLaw, Charlotte image: Adobe Stock |
|
|
Freedom of the Press: What Does the First Amendment Actually Protect?
“Freedom of the press” is one of the most familiar phrases in the U.S. Constitution. Yet a dispute unfolding at the White House is raising a more complicated question: Does freedom of the press include a right of access to the government, and can that access be taken away because officials object to a news organization’s reporting?
The issue came to a head in September after President Donald Trump’s administration barred journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico from White House grounds. The administration defended the restrictions in part on national-security grounds, while the news organizations challenged them in federal court, arguing that the government was retaliating against them for their reporting and had violated their constitutional rights.
On September 24, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a temporary order requiring the White House to restore the journalists’ credentials for 14 days while the litigation continues. Importantly, the ruling was preliminary, not a final determination that the administration violated the First Amendment. The judge found that the news organizations had shown a likelihood of success on their Fifth Amendment due-process claim.
What does the First Amendment actually say? The First Amendment prohibits the government from making laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” That protection gives journalists substantial freedom to investigate, publish and criticize the government without government censorship simply because officials dislike what is being reported.
But freedom of the press does not mean that a journalist automatically has a constitutional right to enter every government building, attend every meeting or obtain every government record.
The distinction becomes more important when the government itself establishes access for journalists.
Nearly 50 years ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit considered that question in Sherrill v. Knight. The court explained that the White House was not constitutionally required to establish press facilities in the first place. But once it voluntarily made those facilities available to bona fide journalists, access could not simply be denied arbitrarily. The court also required notice of the reasons for a denial, an opportunity for the journalist to respond, and a written decision.
That precedent is now playing an important role in the current dispute.
There is another important distinction. Government officials are free to criticize the press. Presidents can dispute stories, accuse journalists of unfairness, decline interviews and publicly challenge reporting they believe is inaccurate.
The constitutional question becomes different when the government uses its official authority to impose consequences on a journalist or news organization because of the content or viewpoint of its reporting.
The current litigation therefore raises questions extending well beyond who gets a White House press pass: When does government control over access become unconstitutional retaliation? What procedural protections must journalists receive before credentials are revoked? And how should legitimate security concerns be balanced against constitutional protections for newsgathering?
Those questions remain contested in the ongoing case. The Justice Department has indicated that it wants courts to reconsider the longstanding precedent governing White House press access, while the news organizations argue that the restrictions violate both First Amendment and due-process protections.
Freedom of the press is ultimately not only about protecting journalists. The constitutional protection also serves the public’s interest in receiving information from competing and independent sources. In Sherrill, the D.C. Circuit specifically recognized that both journalists and the public at large have a First Amendment interest in preventing arbitrary restrictions on newsgathering.
The current controversy is far from resolved, and the courts may ultimately draw the constitutional boundaries differently as the case proceeds. But it provides a timely reminder of an important principle built into the First Amendment:
A free press does not require the government to agree with what is published. Its importance becomes clearest precisely when it does not.
BridgehouseLaw, Charlotte image: Adobe Stock |
|
|
Even Taylor Swift Can't Trademark Everything
Taylor Swift is one of the most recognizable entertainers, and brands, in the world. Her name, album eras, merchandise, tours, and related intellectual property form an enormous commercial enterprise. But even one of the world's most sophisticated celebrity brands can run into a basic rule of trademark law: someone else may have gotten there first.
That issue is now at the center of a federal trademark dispute involving Swift’s 2025 album, The Life of a Showgirl, and Las Vegas performer Maren Flagg, professionally known as Maren Wade.
Wade has used “Confessions of a Showgirl” in connection with her entertainment work for more than a decade and owns a federal trademark registration for the name. Her brand has been used for a live cabaret show and subsequently expanded into other media, including a book and podcast. In March 2026, she sued Swift and several related companies, alleging that the enormous commercial campaign surrounding The Life of a Showgirl infringes her trademark rights. Swift and the other defendants dispute those allegations and are seeking dismissal of the case.
The dispute became particularly interesting in September when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued another non-final Office Action concerning TAS Rights Management’s application to register THE LIFE OF A SHOWGIRL.
The application covers numerous categories of goods and services. In an earlier Office Action, the USPTO refused registration in certain classes based on a potential likelihood of confusion with Wade’s existing CONFESSIONS OF A SHOWGIRL registration. The September action did not turn the application into a final rejection, but the continuing trademark-office proceedings have now become part of the federal lawsuit.
That distinction matters. A USPTO refusal does not by itself establish that Swift infringed Wade's trademark, and the federal court will independently consider the legal arguments before it.
Trademark law generally isn't about whether two names are absolutely identical. One of its central concerns is whether consumers are likely to be confused about the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or connection between goods or services.
Here, Wade argues that The Life of a Showgirl is sufficiently similar to her established Confessions of a Showgirl brand to create that problem. Her amended complaint points to the common phrase “of a Showgirl,” overlapping entertainment services, and what she describes as the overwhelming commercial reach of Swift's newer brand.
Swift's attorneys strongly disagree. They argue that consumers are not plausibly going to believe Wade's cabaret performances, book, or podcast originated with or were affiliated with Swift. They also contend that The Life of a Showgirl is the title of an expressive work entitled to significant First Amendment protection.
That disagreement will ultimately be for the courts to resolve.
The case also illustrates a lesser-known concept in trademark law known as reverse confusion. The traditional trademark story involves a smaller or newer business using a name associated with a larger, established brand. Reverse confusion turns that scenario around: a smaller business claims that a much larger newcomer has become so dominant that consumers may mistakenly believe the smaller, original business is associated with, or even copying, the larger company.
That is essentially Wade's theory. She alleges that she spent years developing her Showgirl brand before Swift's album arrived, but Swift's enormous commercial reach could cause the public to associate the terminology primarily with Swift. Swift disputes that the circumstances amount to actionable trademark infringement.
The dispute provides a useful lesson well beyond the entertainment industry.
A business can spend substantial amounts developing a company name, product, logo, website, packaging, advertising and marketing materials only to discover later that someone else has existing rights that interfere with the new brand.
That's why a trademark search should ideally happen before a business invests heavily in a name, not afterward.
And perhaps the most interesting lesson from this particular dispute is remarkably simple: Being the bigger brand doesn't necessarily mean being the first brand.
Whether you are launching a new company, product, service, or brand, identifying potential trademark conflicts before investing in a name can save significant time, expense, and disruption later.
BridgehouseLaw assists businesses with trademark searches, applications and registrations, intellectual property strategy, licensing, and the protection of valuable brand assets in the United States and internationally.
Building a brand? Let BridgehouseLaw help you protect it.
Dathan D'Agostino, BridgehouseLaw, Charlotte image: Adobe Stock
|
|
Reinhard von Hennigs German Honorary Consul for the Charlotte Area
As Honorary Consul, Mr. von Hennigs can assist the German community in the Carolinas with the following matters:
- Obtaining German Passports
- Passport Renewals
- Family Registrations (Birth, Death, Divorce, Marriage)
- Name Change Registration
- Signature Authentication
- Life Certificates
To learn more about the Honorary Consul position and its services, check out the Honorary Consul website. |
|
Humor ist, wenn man trotzdem lacht. Laughter is the best medicine. |
|
October Insights: Small Facts, Big Perspective
October Is Cybersecurity Awareness Month October is a good time for a quick digital-security checkup. Turn on multifactor authentication wherever it is available, install pending software updates, and avoid reusing passwords across important accounts. A compromised password becomes considerably more dangerous when the same credentials unlock your email, banking, shopping, and work accounts.
That Package-Delivery Text Deserves a Second Look As holiday shopping begins to pick up, so do texts claiming that a package could not be delivered or that a small fee is required to complete delivery. Rather than clicking the link, check the shipment directly through the retailer or carrier you actually used. The FTC warns that unexpected package-delivery messages are a common way for scammers to steal personal and financial information.
Your Jack-o’-Lantern Has a Surprisingly Long History Pumpkin carving may feel quintessentially American, but the tradition has roots in Ireland and Britain, where people carved faces into turnips and other root vegetables. Irish immigrants helped bring the custom to the United States, where native pumpkins proved considerably easier, and much larger, to carve.
Halloween Is Big Business Halloween has evolved far beyond costumes for children. Americans now spend billions each year on costumes, candy, decorations, parties, and even costumes for their pets. It is a reminder that seemingly small cultural traditions can develop into substantial markets, and create businesses, brands, trademarks, licensing opportunities, and contracts along the way. National Retail Federation Halloween research You can visit our blog to find our past newsletter articles.
|
|
| See what's happening on our social sites: |
|
October 2026 Volume 18 Issue 10 |
|
|
|
|
