This Practice Note provides practical guidance on the relevance and distinctions of the like product in trade remedy investigations. It provides guidance of the rationale for requiring like products in anti-dumping, subsidy and safeguard investigations. The guidance addresses the relevance of like product in defining the scope of the investigation, the determination of the domestic industry and the determination of injury. Introduction Trade remedy investigations may differ in the subject of what is being investigated. Anti-dumping investigations seek to determine if a product is being sold in the export market for less than it is sold in the exporter’s domestic market. Countervailing investigations seek to determine if the product being imported is receiving a subsidy from the exporting Member State. Safeguard investigations in turn seek to determine if the goods being imported are being imported in sudden increased quantities due to unforeseen circumstance. In all three trade remedy investigations it is vitally important to define what the imported product is. In all trade remedy investigations this is the case as the investigating authority

Likelihood of confusion describes the risk that the average consumer will mistakenly believe that goods or services come from, or are connected with, another trader. It is a central test in trade mark infringement and opposition proceedings across the UK and Ireland, and also arises in passing off and unfair competition-style claims. In UK law (including England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland), the concept is embedded in the Trade Marks Act 1994 and developed extensively in case law, including decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down before the end of the Brexit transition period. In Ireland, it is similarly grounded in the Trade Marks Act 1996 and corresponding CJEU jurisprudence. Courts assess likelihood of confusion globally, taking into account visual, aural and conceptual similarity of marks, similarity of goods and services, distinctiveness and reputation of the earlier mark, and the characteristics of the average consumer. Actual confusion is relevant but not required. The concept is broadly consistent across the UK and Ireland, and is crucial in clearance searches, brand selection, trade mark portfolio management, enforcement strategy and litigation risk assessment.

IP analysis: This was an appeal from the High Court concerning trade mark infringement and passing off. At first instance, the claimants’ claim was dismissed. The appellants’ key ground of appeal was that the existence of a ‘crowded market’ was irrelevant to the assessment of likelihood of confusion. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal following oral argument, with reasons to follow. The key takeaway from its judgment is that the use by third parties of other similar signs can diminish the distinctiveness of a trade mark, and that in a crowded market it is harder for a particular mark to stand out. The court also held that coexistence agreements between the parties of a trade mark infringement dispute and another third party may be relevant when assessing likelihood of confusion. Written by Phillipus Putter, associate at Bird & Bird LLP.

Property analysis: Following the general election held on 4 July 2024, the UK has a new Labour government, for the first time since 2010. We set out what the property industry can expect from the new government, by examining the key announcements made by the Labour party in the lead-up to the election, the Labour Manifesto and the existing legislation it has to contend with.

1 Terms of business 1.1 [Your contract is solely with [insert name of company or LLP], which has sole legal liability for the work done for you and for any act or omission in the course of that work. No representative, [member OR director], officer, employee, agent or consultant of [insert name of company or LLP], will have any personal legal liability for any loss or claim. OR Your contract is solely with [insert name of partnership or sole practice]. No employee, agent or consultant of [insert name of partnership or sole practice] will have any personal legal liability for any loss or claim, save for the [partners OR sole proprietor] of [insert name of partnership or sole

Under the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), time limits are imposed for the bringing of proceedings applicable to actions relating to repayment from a current banking account.

This Practice Note considers the application of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), addressing its function as well as when and how it applies. For guidance on calculating limitation periods under LA 1980, including the general principles for determining when time starts to run and a claim is ‘brought’ for limitation purposes, see Practice Note: Limitation—when will it end? For an overview of the principal limitation periods under LA 1980, see Practice Note: Limitation—the principal limitation periods. The function of limitation periods Statutory limitation periods seek to regulate the balance between interests which compete and sometimes conflict: • the interest of the claimant in having the most extensive opportunity to pursue claims for legal redress, and • the interest of the defendant in not having to defend stale proceedings because: ◦ it is unfair for the 'sword of Damocles' to hang over them indefinitely ◦ the passage of time causes memory to fade and evidence to be lost If a claim is brought outside the relevant time limit, the defendant may have

Personal Injury analysis: The High Court has recently overturned a first instance decision, where the lower court had refused to disapply a limitation period for a claimant pursuant to section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980). Mr Justice Mann held that the lower court had unfairly placed significant weight on a specific period of delay in bringing the proceedings, and further incorrectly emphasised the claimant’s culpability for that delay. Overturning the decision, and reconsidering the key indices to be addressed when faced with an application to disapply LA 1980, Mr Justice Mann held that the delay was excusable in the circumstances, and that a fair trial was still possible. The evidential position of the defendant had not been unduly worsened by the passage of time, although the delay was considered to be very close to the point at which it would be unfair to defendants to extend the period. Written by Judith Martin, partner at Clyde & Co LLP.

Construction analysis: The question of whether limitation applies to adjudication has long been a source of academic debate. In the first of three articles, James Frampton and Thomas Saunders, barristers at Keating Chambers, revisit this topic, following the Technology and Construction Court’s decision in LRJ Interiors v Cooper Construction.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. It summarises a number of illustrative decisions dated pre-May 2025 relevant to the court’s discretion to permit amendments to parties and statements of case after the expiry of a limitation period. It refers to section 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) as well as relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), in particular CPR 17.4 and CPR 19.6, and focuses primarily on cases which are most likely to be of interest to a dispute resolution practitioner. For summaries of illustrative decisions relevant to LA 1980 dated post May 2025, see Practice Note: Limitation—illustrative decisions. For guidance on the circumstances when a court may allow amendments to a party’s statement of case following a relevant period of limitation having expired (or potentially expired), see Practice Notes: • Limitation—amendments to statements of case, set-offs and counterclaims • Limitation—amending a party name and substituting or adding (joinder) of parties For further details and links to practical content which more

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. It summarises a number of key and/or illustrative decisions relevant to the extension or postponement of limitation periods under the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) dated pre-June 2025. For summaries of illustrative decisions relevant to LA 1980 dated post June 2025, see Practice Note: Limitation—illustrative decisions. For guidance on the circumstances when a court may allow an extension of time pursuant to LA 1980, see Practice Notes: • Limitation—fraud, deliberate concealment and mistake • Limitation—extensions of time under the Limitation Act 1980 • Limitation—latent damage For further details and links to practical content which more broadly addresses LA 1980 and related limitation issues relevant to a dispute resolution practitioner, see: Limitation—overview. Case details and analysis Judgment date Case summary Supreme Court Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) v Tradition Financial Services Ltd; Nathanael Eurl Ltd (in liquidation) v Tradition Financial Services Ltd [2025] UKSC 18News Analyses:—Insolvency–fraudulent trading and dishonest assistance (Bilta and others v Tradition Financial Services)—Supreme

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: This case concerned a claim relating to childhood physical and sexual abuse in a care home in the 1980s. The key issue was limitation. It was the first case to explore the implications of section 96 of the Crime and Policing Act 1986 which sought to remove the limitation period for cases relating to childhood sexual abuse. Produced in partnership with Robert Parkin, barrister of Deka Chambers.