NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Albania and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Albanian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Also, are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Albania? In June 2020, Albania transposed the Directive (EU) 2019/1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market (ECN+ Directive) into the Albanian legal system. It is worth noting that the transposition was carried out by adopting a soft law instrument, namely a guideline, whereas EU Member States normally adopt amendments to the existing competition acts or by adopting separate laws. In February 2024, the competition authority of Albania launched public consultations for the proposed amendments to the Law No. 9121 on Competition Protection, as amended (Competition Act). The amendments are still in the draft stage. 2.

Ireland—Commercial analysis: This article, was written by Colin Kavanagh and Orla Clayton of Arthur Cox LLP. Implementation of alcohol health warning labels under Ireland’s Public Health (Alcohol) Act 2018 has been postponed to September 2028.

The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) aims to expand the adoption of high-quality nature-related disclosures among businesses and financial institutions. In its briefing, the Aldersgate Group stated that businesses are keen to produce TNFD-aligned disclosures, but barriers in the workplace prevent their implementation. The group called on the government to address these barriers and champion the TNFD framework through a number of recommendations.

TMT analysis: The High Court has upheld claims for libel and malicious falsehood made in the context of a dispute between two nursing professionals. The claimant’s claim was based on statements made in an email from the defendant to a senior manager and the HR manager at the Priory Hospital, and copied to the claimant, relating to allegations of sexual harassment and victimisation by the claimant. The claimant claimed that the statements were false and defamatory, and that they had been made maliciously. The court conducted an extensive review of the evidence and found that, while the claimant was a witness of truth who had given consistent evidence which had been supported, when relevant, by written and oral evidence of witnesses and e-mail documentation, the defendant was not a credible historian. It upheld the libel claim on the basis that the words complained of were defamatory and had caused serious harm to the claimant by damaging his reputation, causing him significant health problems (which had resulted in the need to take medication) and causing him to miss out on overtime shifts (which had caused a loss of income). The defences of truth and qualified privilege advanced by the defendant failed. It also found that the statements had been made maliciously. It awarded a total of £26K in damages to the claimant (covering general damages, aggravated damages and special damages). It also ordered a five year injunction to restrain the defendant from further publishing or causing to be published the words complained of or any other words to the same or any similar effect which were false and/or defamatory of the claimant.

TMT analysis: The court has ruled on an interim application in respect of a defamation claim relating to an online news report. The news report described how a college teacher had been banned from the profession after making sexual advances towards a student. The teacher in question sued the publisher of the news website and the college for libel. The court was asked to rule on: (1) the meanings which the words complained of were capable of bearing and (2) the extent to which, if at all, the claimant’s claims had any real prospect of success having regard to that issue, and to the reporting privileges provided for in the Defamation Act 1996. In considering the case against the publisher, the court concluded that the words complained of were incapable of bearing the vast majority of the meanings complained of by the claimant. They were, however, capable of bearing meanings defamatory of him, the parameters of which were set out in the judgment. However, the court granted the publisher’s application for summary judgment on the basis that the vast majority of the article was manifestly privileged, that there was no tenable case of malice, and that of the remainder of the article, part would inevitably be found to be honest opinion, and the rest was so trivial that it would be abusive to pursue a claim in respect of it. In considering the case against the college, the court concluded that the words complained of were capable of bearing defamatory meanings about the claimant. Summary judgment was not sought on that part of the claim. The court has also granted summary judgment in a related case brought against the author of the article.

IP & IT analysis: The High Court has allowed an appeal by Apple Inc against an opposition decision relating to the registration of the mark IWATCH for a range of goods in class 9. Swatch AG had opposed the registration of the mark on relative grounds, based on its earlier registrations for ISWATCH and SWATCH in respect of horological and chronometric instruments (including watches) in class 14. The Registrar of Trade Marks had upheld the opposition in part but permitted Apple’s application to proceed in relation to goods including computer software, security devices and computer peripherals in class 9. Apple appealed the decision on the basis that the hearing officer had made errors in the assessment of the similarity of the goods and in the assessment of the similarity of the marks. The court allowed the appeal on the basis that the hearing officer had erred in his assessment of the similarity of goods, and in his assessment of the likelihood of confusion. The case is related to a recent decision of Mr Justice Arnold, in which an attack on Apple’s mark on absolute grounds succeeded to a significant extent. Accordingly, the current appeal was filed in case that decision should be overturned on appeal.

IP & IT analysis: The High Court has dismissed an appeal against a decision by the Hearing Officer not to uphold an opposition by SoulCycle Ltd in relation to the registration of the figurative mark SOULUXE by Matalan Ltd. The opposition had been based on section 5(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, and SoulCycle had relied on a number of earlier marks which incorporated the word SOUL. Amongst other things, the High Court held that the Hearing Officer had not made an error of principle in its assessment of the conceptual similarity of the marks, by finding that some average consumers would have one perception of the mark applied for and others would have another, because this was within the exercise anticipated by the courts in Interflora Inc v Marks & Spencer plc [2013] EWHC 1291 (Ch). Furthermore, the court was not persuaded by the alternative case that, if the Hearing Officer was entitled to consider the two groups of average consumer, he had wrongly dealt with the perceptions of the two groups when reaching his conclusions on the conceptual, aural, visual and overall similarity of the marks in question.

TMT analysis: The High Court has ruled on the meaning of an extract from the political biography ‘Broken Vows–Tony Blair, the Tragedy of Power’, as a preliminary issue in defamation proceedings. The extract in question stated ‘In the ensuing discussion about gays in politics, journalist Matthew Parris declared on BBC TV that Mandelson was gay. Days later, Nick Brown, the new minister of agriculture, was accused by the News of the World of paying £100 to rent boys in order to be kicked around a room, and admitted his sexuality.’ The court held that the meaning of the extract was that, at the date the allegation was made by the News of the World, there were grounds to suspect that the claimant, Mr Brown, had paid young male prostitutes to subject him to consensual rough sex. In reaching its conclusion, the court took into account a number of factors, including the consequence of the rule on repetition. The court was not asked to rule on whether the meaning of the statement was defamatory because the parties had reached agreement on this point. The judge commented that the agreement between the parties left the court in an unsatisfactory position because it might have (unwittingly) concealed elements which were still in dispute and highly material to any assessment of serious harm and/or damages. However, he decided not to make a ruling on this point, which could be revisited later in the proceedings if appropriate.

IP & IT analysis: a brief summary of Gloucester Place Music Ltd v Le Bon & Ors.

IP & IT analysis: This judgment concerned whether the claimant (GNIC) had validly served notice to terminate a trade mark licence agreement (the agreement) which permitted the defendants (HB) to use certain trade marks in the UK. The agreement had been made between GNIC Arizona OldCo and HB. GNIC claimed to have become successor to GNIC Arizona Oldco’s rights under the agreement following an internal reorganisation in which all of GNIC Arizona Oldco’s assets had been transferred to GNIC and, subsequent to which, GNIC Arizona Oldco had been dissolved. The court held, among other things, that the notices which GNIC had served in response to alleged material breaches by HB were invalid, as no notice had been given to HB of the assignment of the agreement from GNIC Arizona Oldco to GNIC. It further held that there had been no material breaches of the agreement. In relation to a number of licensed trade marks which had not been used by HB for over five years, the court held that if the licence of a particular mark was terminated, there was nothing in the agreement which prevented its future use in the UK by GNIC. An In brief analysis will follow in due course.

IP & IT analysis: The High Court has dismissed an appeal against the decision of the Hearing Officer to uphold an opposition in respect of an application by the Royal Mint Limited to register the word ‘SOVEREIGN’ for gold commemorative coins, based on sections 3(1)(c) and 3(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. The court held that the hearing officer’s finding that the mark was descriptive because a sovereign is a ‘denomination of money’ and a ‘kind of gold commemorative coin’ could not be impugned. It also held that the Hearing Officer was entitled to conclude that the word sovereign did not guarantee the trade origin of gold commemorative coins because it had become customary in the language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade. Furthermore, the hearing officer had not erred in finding that there was no acquired distinctiveness.

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has announced that Alex Chalk KC has been officially sworn in as Lord Chancellor. Prior to his appointment as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice in April 2023, Chalk was Minister of State in the Ministry of Defence from October 2022 to April 2023 and was formerly HM Solicitor General for England and Wales and the Prisons and Probation Minister.