IP analysis: This judgment confirms the evidential and strategic importance of acquired distinctiveness, reputation and actual confusion in trade mark infringement claims. The IPEC rejected a descriptiveness challenge to FLOWERBX and found infringement under sections 10(2)(b) and 10(3) Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994), holding that the competing signs created a likelihood of confusion and took unfair advantage of Flowerbx’s reputation. The judgment shows that reputation may be established through a combination of sales, media coverage, collaborations, brand positioning and founder association, while documented online confusion can materially support both confusion and unfair-advantage claims. Brand owners should preserve contemporaneous evidence of reputation-building and consumer confusion. Produced in partnership with Rebecca Field of HGF Ltd.

Some standard form contracts contain provisions which entitle the contractor to an addition to the contract sum to take into account of differences in the cost of labour and material between the tender date and the time when the work is actually done. These provisions must be excluded if the employer and contractor wish to agree a fixed price.

What are fluctuations? Fluctuations provisions are clauses in construction contracts that allow the contract sum to be adjusted to take account of changes to the price of labour, materials and other costs throughout a construction project. By way of example, if a contractor tenders on the basis of prices current at the time of tender, and then inflation results in the cost of procuring the works increasing during the project, the contractor bears that cost. Where there are no fluctuations provisions in the building contract the contractor is deemed therefore to have taken account of inflation and the risk of any inflationary increases in its pricing. On the other hand, where there is no fluctuations clause, if prices go down, a contractor could benefit from the reduced costs. Where fluctuations clauses are included in a construction contract, the contractor could be entitled to be reimbursed some or all of any additional costs caused by rising prices. Calculating the increased cost may be achieved by using an index based formula, or by using a published list of market

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 9 July 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary andrelated cases Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/Chapter I and Article 102 TFEU/Chapter II investigation into Aspen’s alleged breach of competition law in relation to the supply of fludrocortisone acetate tablets in the UK. Latest developments On 9 July 2020, the CMA issued its infringement decision, finding that Aspen unlawfully agreed to pay two other firms, Amilco and Tiofarma, to stay out of the UK market for fludrocortisone acetate tablets so that Aspen could maintain its position as the sole UK supplier of fludrocortisone, allowing it to raise prices by 1,800%. The CMA imposed a fine totalling £2.3. In addition, Aspen has made a payment of £8m to the NHS. Parties • Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Ltd, Aspen Global Inc., Apsen Pharma Ireland Ltd, and Aspen Pharma Trading Ltd (together, Aspen: Aspen is a multinational pharmaceutical group with its headquarters in South Africa. It owns a broad portfolio

This term is applied to the amount of particles or energy that crosses a unit area per unit time. The unit of flux is the number of particles or energy, per square centimetre per second.

A freehold created by the horizontal division of land.

A freehold estate prima facie includes everything directly beneath the surface of the land and the airspace directly above it (ostensibly without limit in either direction, although the absolute nature of this notion has been tempered in recent times). Consequently, two freeholds should not overlap. However, practitioners should be alive to the existence of a ‘flying freehold’: this is a freehold property (or part of it) which overhangs (or ‘flies’ above) another freehold property: the latter property, which projects under the flying freehold property, is sometimes known as a ‘creeping freehold’. Today, a long lease would be granted in such a scenario, but flying freeholds (which may have been created many years previously) still crop up regularly. Examples include: • balconies • archways • part of a property above a passageway in a row of houses or above an accessway which leads to a car park area for a modern courtyard housing development • basement vaults Inspection A flying freehold may not be obvious from the title deeds (older plans frequently do not show elevations or refer to

ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 10 March 2020; it is no longer maintained. NOTE—Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal's judgment on the costs relating. See further, timeline,commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal by the Competition and Markets Authority against the CAT’s judgment quashing the CMA’s infringement decision of 12 February 2016 fining Pifzer Inc and Flynn Pharma (Holdings) Limited for charging unfair and excessive prices for phenytoin sodium capsules, contrary to Article 102 TFEU and Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998. Latest developments On 10 March 2020, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in which it rejected the CMA’s arguments to reinstate the fines. However, it found that the CAT made legal errors in its analysis of the CMA’s excessive pricing decision against Pfizer Inc and Flynn Pharma (Holdings) Limited. Parties • Appellant: Competition and Markets authority (CMA)• Respondents: Pfizer Inc. and Pfizer Limited (together Pfizer). •

Friends of the Earth (FoE) has announced that the UK Government is required to publish a new climate action plan by 29 October 2025 to meet legally binding targets through to 2037. The announcement follows a successful legal challenge that found the previous Carbon Budget Delivery Plan unlawful. The new plan will cover Carbon Budgets four to six and must demonstrate how the UK will achieve its emissions reduction targets. Data shows the net zero economy grew by 10% in 2024, generating £83bn, while polling indicates 61% of adults support the Government's 2050 net zero commitment.

Friends of the Earth (FoE) has confirmed that West Cumbria Mining (WCM) missed the 4 October 2024 deadline to appeal the High Court’s recent ruling, Friends of the Earth Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and others; South Lakeland Action on Climate Change - Towards Transition v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and others [2024] EWHC 2349 (Admin), which quashed planning permission for the coal mine in Cumbria. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Angela Rayner, will now have to reconsider WCM’s original planning application, unless the company decides to abandon its plans by withdrawing it.

Friends of the Earth (FoE), along with co-claimants, Doug Paulley and Kevin Jordan, have filed a legal challenge in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on 1 July 2025 against the UK government's National Adaptation Programme 3 (NAP3). The action follows an unsuccessful challenge in the High Court. The claimants argue that NAP3 breaches human rights by failing to set specific and measurable objectives and assert that the government's obligations under the Climate Change Act 2008 (CCA 2008) should be interpreted in line with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). They further contend that in developing the plan, the government should have considered the perspectives of those most vulnerable to climate impacts, such as older and disabled people, as well as people living in geographically vulnerable areas.

Friends of the Earth (FoE), along with co-claimants, Doug Paulley and Kevin Jordan, have filed an appeal against the High Court's October 2024 decision, which dismissed their legal challenge to the UK government's National Adaptation Programme 3 (NAP3). They contend that the judge erred in ruling that non-specific and unmeasurable adaptation objectives could be lawfully established under the Climate Change Act 2008 (CCA 2008). They also argue that a risk assessment for potential policy and plan failures was not legally required. The co-claimants assert that their human rights were violated during the plan's development, particularly due to the exclusion of marginalised groups from the decision-making process. The court is expected to decide whether to allow the appeal within the next 2-3 months.