UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥

View the related checklists about Substantive examination

Key developments relating to CCPs—timeline [Archived]

Key developments relating to CCPs—timeline [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is no longer maintained. This timeline tracks the key developments and items of news relating to central counterparties (CCPs). • CCPs—Key developments—2023 • CCPs—Key developments—2022 • CCPs—Key developments—2021 • CCPs—Key developments—2020 • CCPs—Key developments—2019 • CCPs—Key developments—2018 • CCPs—Key developments—2017 • CCPs—Key developments—2016 • CCPs—Key developments—2015 • CCPs—Key developments—2014 • CCPs—Key developments—2013 • CCPs—Key developments—2012 • CCPs—Key developments—2011 • Glossary of defined terms CCPs—Key developments—2023 Date Issuing body Document Description 8 December 2023 UK Legislation Central Counterparties (Equivalence) (United States of America) (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) Regulations 2023 SI 2023/1323: These Regulations are made in exercise of legislative powers under the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories in connection with Brexit. They come into force on 28 December 2023. 6 December 2023 ECON Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2009/65/EU, 2013/36/EU and (EU) 2019/2034...

View the related practice notes about Substantive examination

Slovenia FDI control

Slovenia FDI control A conversation with Marko Ketler and Petra Lipovšek Cankar from the Slovenian law firm Ketler & Partners on key issues on foreign direct investment (FDI) control in Slovenia. 1. What is the applicable legislation? The applicable legislation governing foreign direct investment (FDI) control is the Investment Promotion Act (Official Gazette No. 13/18, 204/21, 29/22, 65/23 and 31/24, the Act). This Act was amended by the Act on Amendments and Additions to the Investment Promotion Act in order to improve and, in particular, to ensure the continuity and permanence of the FDI notification and screening mechanism, which was previously regulated in the Act Determining the Intervention Measures to Mitigate and Remedy the Consequences of the COVID-19 Epidemic (Official Gazette No. 80/20), The new FDI regime pursuant to the Investment Promotion Act applies as of 1 July 2023. Additionally, Regulation 2019/452/EU establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the EU (the Regulation) is applicable as of 11 October 2020. Under the...

Brussels I (recast)—contract claims (Art 7(1))

Brussels I (recast)—contract claims (Art 7(1)) This Practice Note explains how contract claims are dealt with under Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). It considers the connecting factors required, the characteristics of the contract in terms of obligations, the place of performance and place of delivery. It also distinguishes between sale of goods and provision of services contracts. The provisions dealing with contract claims are set out in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), previously Article 5 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. The recast of the regulation resulted in some changes to the provisions, but the Court of Justice’s interpretation of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I should be observed when considering the interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and its application. This can be seen from recital 34, of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) which emphasises a need for continuity. It provides that: ‘Continuity between the 1968 Brussels Convention, Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 and...

View the related q&as about Substantive examination

Manufacturer/sales distributor (A) with UK/EU design registrations and marketing rights worldwide demands a UK reseller of similar products (B) to cease and desist from infringing A’s IP rights and requests other remedies including details of B’s manufacturers, suppliers and distributors. What defences and solutions are open to B, an unintentional infringer, if it saw design product similarities but understood the non-EU manufacturer had all necessary permissions, rights, licences, etc to manufacture the goods B bought ‘off the peg’ for resale?

Manufacturer/sales distributor (A) with UK/EU design registrations and marketing rights worldwide demands a UK reseller of similar products (B) to cease and desist from infringing A’s IP rights and requests other remedies including details of B’s manufacturers, suppliers and distributors. What defences and solutions are open to B, an unintentional infringer, if it saw design product similarities but understood the non-EU manufacturer had all necessary permissions, rights, licences, etc to manufacture the goods B bought ‘off the peg’ for resale? This Q&A assumes that B’s reselling activities are limited to the UK. UK Registered Design Rights The putting on the market, importing and/or using of a product incorporating a design which does not differ in its overall impression from a UK Registered Design will, absent any defence, infringe a UK Registered Design (sections 7 and 7A of the Registered Designs Act 1949 (RDA 1949)). All remedies available for infringement of other IP rights are available to Registered Designs. In proceedings for infringement of a UK Registered Design, ...

View the related News about Substantive examination

Commission’s proposals for Regulations on supplementary protection certificates

IP analysis: Hiroshi Sheraton and Tanvi Shah of Baker Mckenzie, consider the European Commission’s proposals for Regulations on supplementary protection certificates (SPC) provide key points from the Commission’s proposals and an overview of the proposals. Sheraton and Shah also assess the reason for the proposed Regulations.

Court of Justice rules on jurisdiction, connecting factors in trade mark infringement (Lännen v Berky)

IP analysis: This case concerns the reference for a preliminary ruling by a Finnish court regarding an alleged trade mark infringement. The Finnish court requested guidance regarding when an EU trade mark court has international jurisdiction under Article 125(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, if the third party doesn’t expressly list that Member State among the territories to which they supply goods. The Court of Justice provides guidance on international jurisdiction and the connecting factors required to determine this jurisdiction. The court provides useful guidance stating that the paid use of a search machine with a top-level domain other than that of the Member State in which the trader is established can be considered an infringement and that natural referencing in the form of a metatag, at least in some cases, shouldn’t. Written by Emily Sullivan, Rechtsanwältin at Mewburn Ellis, Munich.