This Practice Note summarises the main types of legal action that can be taken against the UK trade in counterfeit goods, the pros and cons of each, and includes some practical tips for brand owners. It covers actions by the authorities, including customs, Trading Standards (TS) and the police, as well as civil actions and private criminal prosecutions by right holders. In some countries, it is also possible to bring administrative actions against infringers, but these are not dealt with here. This Practice Note focuses on counterfeiting (meaning trade mark-related offences), but also touches on piracy (copyright-related offences) and offences relating to registered designs. This Practice Note deals with anti-counterfeiting activity both online and offline. For more information about brand protection online, see Practice Note: Brand protection online—strategy and Brand protection online—checklist. For more information about dealing with counterfeit goods at EU-level, see Practice Note: IP enforcement and the EU customs regime. For further reading, see the following guidance published by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO): • IP crime and enforcement for businesses • IP:

This principle seeks to prevent parties from contracting out of the statutory regime for the collection, realisation and distribution of an insolvent estate. It prevents assets that should form part of an insolvent estate from being removed from that estate.

Add new Article 14 as follows: 14. Anti-dilution 14.1 In this Article 14, unless the context otherwise requires the following expressions shall have the following meanings: New Securities means any Shares or other securities convertible into, or carrying the right to subscribe for Shares, issued by the Company after the date of adoption of these Articles. 14.2 If the Company issues any New Securities at a price per Share less than the Issue Price of the Preferred Shares (Qualifying Issue), the Company shall, subject to Article 14.6, make a bonus issue of such number of [Ordinary OR Preferred] Shares (Anti-Dilution Shares) to each holder for the time being of Preferred Shares (Exercising Investors) calculated as follows (rounding down to the nearest whole Share): [ [Full Ratchet] ADS = (TP / P) – N Where: ADS = the number of Anti-Dilution Shares; TP = the total amount subscribed (whether in cash or by way of conversion of loan) by such Exercising Investor for their Preferred Shares prior to the Qualifying Issue; P = the lowest price at which each New Security is to be issued (which

Boilerplate provisions in public sector contracts This Practice Note looks at equality and anti-discrimination clauses in public sector contracts. For more information on what contracting authorities (and other interested parties) need to know when using boilerplate provisions in public sector agreements, see Practice Note: Boilerplate provisions in public sector agreements: general considerations. Public procurement reform As of 24 February 2025, the main provisions of the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) are in force. Procurements begun on or after this date must be carried out under PA 2023. The existing public procurement rules (including the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015) and Procurement Practice Notes (PPNs), Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016, Concession Contracts Regulations 2016, and Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011) and/or those governed by other statute(s) (such as health care procurements) continue to apply to procurements already commenced when the PA 2023 regime entered into force. Procurements starting after the entry into force of PA 2023 must be conducted by reference to PA 2023 only. Procurements commenced under the previous legislation should continue to

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on the types of reviews that may occur in the duration of anti-dumping duties. It includes guidance on new shipper, interim, expiry and judicial reviews. Introduction The Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the ‘Anti-dumping Agreement’) makes provision for numerous reviews that may occur in the duration of anti-dumping duties. One review caters for exporters who did not export during the period of investigation of the original anti-dumping investigation. This allows them to receive their own specific anti-dumping duty (or no duty if that is the case) as opposed to the residual anti-dumping duty applied to the Member State from which they import. Another review that occurs prior to the expiry of five-year period for which anti-dumping duties are imposed is the interim review. Interim reviews cater for cases where there is no longer a need to have the anti-dumping duties imposed or where the anti-dumping duty must be increased. This caters for situations where there either is no dumping or there is

This Practice Note provides a comparison of the main differences between the EU, UK and the US in conducting anti-dumping investigations. EU UK US Has the Anti-dumping Agreement been incorporated in national law? The EU has implemented EU legislation, Council Regulation EU No. 2016/1036, (to incorporate the Anti-dumping Agreement’s provisions into EU law. The UK has implemented legislation to incorporate the Anti-dumping Agreement provisions into UK law. The Trade Remedies (Dumping and Subsidisation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 sets out the rules and procedures for anti-dumping investigations (as well as countervailing investigations).The UK also promulgated the Trade Remedies (Reconsideration and Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/910 which deals with appeals and reconsiderations of anti-dumping determinations. These regulations must however be read with the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. The US has implemented the Tariff Act of 1930 to incorporate the Anti-dumping Agreement’s provisions into US law. The provisions dealing with anti-dumping investigations are located in Subtitle B of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 see 19 USC. Which authority conducts the investigation? The European

These clauses typically provide that the seller will receive an additional payment for the shares/assets it sells to the buyer under the SPA/APA if the buyer resells such sale shares/assets (or an exit event such as a listing of the target company’s shares occurs) within a certain period of time after completion of the original sale. These clauses are not common in UK M&A transactions and, where they are used, they are usually tailored to the specific circumstances of the deal.

Delete the existing definition of ‘Consideration’ in Precedent: Share purchase agreement—pro-buyer—corporate seller—conditional—long form. Insert the following definitions in Precedent: Share purchase agreement—pro-buyer—corporate seller—conditional—long form: Additional Consideration means any additional consideration that may become payable under clause [3.2 OR [insert clause number]] and Schedule [9 OR [insert schedule number]]; Disposal means the disposal (other than to [a member of the Buyer’s Group OR [insert name/party description]]) of all or a substantial part of the business or assets of [the Company OR the Group] (whether a single transaction or a series of transactions); Independent Expert means a partner of at least 10 years’ standing at a leading UK firm of accountants (acting as an expert and not as an arbitrator) nominated by the parties concerned

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case concerns a claim by the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Attorney General of the Federal Government of Nigeria for the setting aside of a default judgment granted on 9 November 2018 in proceedings brought against them by the defendant (‘Dr Williams’) for c. USD$15m (plus costs) in Dr Williams’ favour, on the ground that the default judgment was obtained fraudulently. It is well established that an anti-enforcement injunction is available to the English Court, as an equitable remedy, to restrain a party from seeking to enforce a foreign judgment, even in respect of enforcement in other foreign countries. Relying on those principles, in what is believed to be the first case of its kind, an anti-enforcement injunction was granted by the Commercial Court to restrain Dr Williams from enforcing the judgment of an English court overseas (rather than the more common situation in which an anti-enforcement injunction is used to restrain the enforcement of a foreign judgment). Written by Natalie Todd, partner at Cooke, Young & Keidan and Andrew Woolsey, associate at Cooke, Young & Keidan.

This Practice Note looks at the use of anti-enforcement injunctions, also known as anti-enforcement orders. This form of injunctive relief is available at common law and prohibits the party who has obtained a judgment (or arbitral award) from enforcing it. Such injunctions are available, for example, where the party has acted in breach of either a covenant or fiduciary duty or violates principles of public policy. For illustrative decisions as to the court’s approach, see Practice Note: Anti-enforcement injunctions—illustrative decisions. Anti-enforcement injunctions are not available in relation to those EU court judgments which are subject to the transition provisions set out in the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU. For guidance, see: Anti-enforcement injunctions and EU court judgments below. What is an anti-enforcement injunction? An anti-enforcement injunction is an equitable remedy aimed at restraining a party from enforcing a foreign court order or judgment. However, in Federal Government of Nigeria v Williams (2025), the court could see ‘no principled reason why such an order should not be available’ to restrain enforcement of an English judgment.

This Tracker sets out decisions in which the courts have considered applications for anti-enforcement injunctions. For guidance on the underlying principles when seeking an anti-enforcement injunction, see Practice Note: Anti-enforcement injunctions. Anti-enforcement injunction granted The following judgments provide insight as to the approach of the court when granting an anti-enforcement injunction. Judgment and citation Decision Federal Government of Nigeria v Williams [2025] EWHC 2217 (Comm)For insight, see News Analysis: Anti-enforcement injunction to prevent enforcement of an English judgment overseas (Federal Government of Nigeria and another v Williams). The court granted an anti-enforcement injunction restraining Dr Williams from taking any steps to pursue, prosecute or progress his claim or seek relief in proceedings he commenced in the US to enforce a default judgment obtained in the English courts, in circumstances where the defendants to the default judgment asserted that the default judgment was obtained by Dr Williams’ fraud. This decision:—recognises that the court has jurisdiction to order an anti-enforcement injunction to restrain enforcement of an English judgment, a point on which the parties had not been able to

From 2011 HMRC attempted to impose additional limits on pensions tax relief on incomes over £130,000, known as ‘anti-forestalling’.