The term 'cybersquatters' refers to people who intentionally snap up available registrations incorporating a third party’s trade mark, with a view to selling them on to another party for a profit or perhaps because they wish to lure consumers to their website by free-riding on a third party’s reputation.

This Practice Note provides an introduction to cybersquatting. Cybersquatting is the registration of a domain name that includes the trade mark of another business with the intention (or effect) of taking unfair advantage of that trade mark. It includes typosquatting, which is the registration of a domain name that includes a misspelling of the trade mark of another business. There are various mechanisms for taking actions against cybersquatters including Nominet’s Dispute Resolution Service (DRS) and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). What is cybersquatting? Cybersquatting, also known as domain name squatting, is the practice of registering in bad faith a domain name that matches or closely resembles a trade mark or a name with the intent to profit from the goodwill associated with that trade mark or name. This practice exploits trade marks of businesses, individuals, or entities and aims to derive commercial gain for the ‘squatter’ and/or disrupt legitimate operations. Evolution and key characteristics of cybersquatting The phenomenon of cybersquatting emerged in the 1990s during the nascent stage of internet commercialisation

A security that is sensitive to movements in the economic cycle, ie it performs well in periods of falling interest rates, or strong growth, but poorly during an economic downturn.

a form of particle accelerator

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 16 October 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the completed acquisition by Cygnet Health Care Limited of the Cambian adult services division of Cambian Group plc. Latest developments On 16 October 2017, the CMA issued its final report and cleared the transaction subject to remedies. The CMA found that the transaction had led to a SLC in relation to the provision of male mental health rehabilitation services in the East Midlands. The CMA cleared the transaction in all other regions originally identified, including the West Midlands where it had identified possible concerns about mental health services to female patients in its provisional decision. In terms of remedies, the parties are required to divest one of their hospitals in the East Midlands to a purchaser approved by the CMA. Parties Cygnet Health Care Ltd (Cygnet) is owned by Universal Health Services, Inc, a US-based company that operates over 240

1. What is the applicable legislation? The applicable legislation is the Law 194(I)/2025 on the Establishment of a Framework for the Screening of Foreign Direct Investments 2025 (FDI Law 2025). It implements at national level the obligations under Regulation (EU) 2019/452 on foreign direct investment (FDI) screening (Regulation (EU) 2019/452). 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? The Ministry of Finance is designated as the competent authority to receive FDI notifications, conduct reviews and coordinate with other departments or the EU. Review is supported by an inter-ministerial Advisory Committee, with representation from relevant ministries. 3. What is the scope of the foreign investment regime in Cyprus? Does it only apply to specific sectors or types of investors (eg foreign or non-EU / non-WTO)? Are there specific rules for certain types of investors (eg state-owned enterprises)? The regime applies to foreign investors defined as individuals or legal entities from outside the EU, EEA or Switzerland. It applies when the investor makes or plans a ‘foreign direct investment’ (ie lasting participation

The Cyprus Presidency of the Council of the EU has published its programme for 1 January to 30 June 2026, outlining its priorities and direction under the presidency's focus on ‘An Autonomous Union. Open to the World.’ The presidency aims to strengthen the EU’s autonomy and internal cohesion in response to heightened geopolitical instability and an increasingly complex global environment, enabling the EU to cooperate with international partners where possible while acting independently when necessary.

This table summarises all completed investigations by Cyprus’s competition authority (the Commission for the Protection of Competition—CPC) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions (Articles 101/102 TFEU and national equivalents) since 2018. Note—only investigations that have been made public are included in this table. 2024 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Article 3 of the Competition Protection Laws of 2008 and 2014 Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Medical services• Pancypriot Medical Association Restrictive agreements • Infringement decision announced—19/09/2024; fines totalling €2,125 imposed Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/Article 6 of the Competition Protection Laws of 2008 and 2014 The CPC did not issue any decisions under Article 102/Article 6 in 2024. 2023 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Article 3 of the Competition Protection Laws of 2008 and 2014 The CPC did not issue any decisions under Article 101/Article 3 in 2023. Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/Article 6 of the Competition Protection Laws of 2008 and 2014 Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Cement• Cementofia Vassilikos Public Company Concerns

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Cyprus and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Cypriot merger control regime and are there any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Cyprus? Since the enactment of 'The Control of Concentrations between Undertakings Law of 2014' (Merger Control Law) there have been no further developments regarding the Cypriot merger control regime. The Merger Control Law better reflects the provisions of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR) and, in particular, it introduced a new definition of a concentration so that one of the criteria for establishing whether a concentration is notifiable is the existence of two or more active participating undertakings in Cyprus. The new thresholds contained in the Merger Control Law, which require at least two of the participating undertakings in a concentration to generate a turnover within the Republic of Cyprus in order for it to be notifiable to the Commission for the Protection of Competition

A conversation with Jan Kupčík and Šimon Kopárek, both from Prague office of regional law firm Schönherr, on key issues on FDI control in Czech Republic. What is the applicable legislation? The foreign investment control in Czech Republic is established by the Act No. 34/2021 Coll., as amended of 19 January 2021 on the screening of foreign investments and amendment of related laws (Foreign Investments Screening Act), which has been effective since 1 May 2021 (‘FDI Act’). Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? The authority in charge of foreign investment screenings in Czech Republic is the Ministry of Industry and Trade (the ‘MIT’). As a part of the process, it also consults other public bodies, including certain ministries, Czech intelligence services, and the National Cyber and Information Security Agency. These institutions provide comments. If necessary, the Ministry submits cases to the Czech government for final deliberation. What is the scope of the foreign investment regime? Does it only apply to specific sectors or types of investors (e.g. foreign or non-EU / non-WTO)? Are

This table summarises all completed investigations by the Czech Republic’s competition authority (the Office for the Protection of Competition—the OPC) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions (Articles 101/102 TFEU and national equivalents) since 2018. Note—only investigations that have been made public are included in this table. 2026 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Article 3 of the Act on the Protection of Competition Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Vehicle transport monitoring and electronic logbook services•O2 Czech Republic • Sherlog Technology Restrictive agreements—allocating customers and coordinating prices • Infringement decision announced—26/08/2026; fines totalling CZK 280,677,000 Electronics• HP TRONIC Zlín, spol. s r.o. Restrictive agreement—RPM • Infringement decision announced—07/05/2026; fines totalling CZK 38,971,000 imposed Household appliances• Elberry s.r.o. Restrictive agreement—RPM • Infringement decision issued—09/01/2026; fines totalling CZK 767,000 imposed Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/Article 11 of the Act on the Protection of Competition Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Online text advertising for property listings on dedicated real-estate portals• Seznam.cz Concerns Seznam.cz abused its dominant position by charging higher unit prices to

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in the Czech Republic and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Czech merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in the Czech Republic? A 2023 bill amending Act No. 143/2001 Coll. of 4 April 2001 On the Protection of Competition (the Act)—which sought to introduce a so-called ‘New Competition Tool’ and a call-in model—has been withdrawn. However, the Office for the Protection of Competition (the Office) plans to introduce a new draft bill in early 2026. With respect to merger control, the Office is expected to propose a comprehensive call-in model, limited only by the total revenues of all parties in the Czech Republic, meaning that acquisitions of even zero-turnover companies could be subject to review. In addition, the Office intends to raise the existing notification thresholds. 2. Under Czech merger control law, is the control test the same as the EU concept of ‘decisive influence’?