The legal framework This Practice Note explains EU trade mark law on parallel trade. Parallel imports, or ‘grey market’ goods, are genuine goods that are placed on the market by, or with the consent of, the rights holder but are imported for sale into a particular market without the rights holder’s consent. They are not counterfeit or ‘black market’ goods. For information about counterfeit goods, see Practice Note: IP enforcement and the EU customs regime. Much of the law in this area originated from the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The position in relation to the exhaustion of trade mark rights is enshrined in Article 15 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436, which governs national trade mark registrations in Member States. Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (the EU Trade Mark Regulation) governs EU trade mark (EUTM) registrations. The equivalent provision is Article 15. For more information about EUTM legislation, see Practice Note: EU trade marks—legislation. The law on parallel trading in the context of other IP rights is the same or similar, but is not covered in this

The legal framework This Practice Note explains trade mark law on parallel trade. Parallel imports, or ‘grey market’ goods, are genuine goods that are placed on the market by, or with the consent of, the rights holder but are imported for sale into a particular market without the rights holder’s consent. They are not counterfeit or ‘black market’ goods. For information about counterfeit goods, see: Anti-counterfeiting—overview. Much of the law in this area originated from the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Directive (EU) 2015/2436 (which governs national trade mark registrations in Member States, and is implemented in the UK via the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994)). This Practice Note sets out the law relating to parallel imports in the context of UK trade mark law. It considers when a trade mark owner’s rights will be exhausted and when the right holder is able to prevent grey market goods from being marketed in the UK. It explains the relationship with the EU parallel imports regime following Brexit, including the practical implications for products

Dispute Resolution analysis: This decision helpfully sets out the basis upon which the court will approach the interpretation of identical wording in separate but similar orders, in this case in the unusual context of a legal expenses exception contained in parallel proprietary (PFO) and non-proprietary (WFO) freezing orders where all of the defendant’s (D1’s) assets were captured by the PFO and would be substantially extinguished by the proposed expenditure. The judgment also illustrates the approach that the court will take when exercising its discretion whether to permit legal expenditure under a PFO, the level and nature of evidence required, and the factors the court will take into account when determining the amount of funds that should be released if any. Written by Jon Felce, partner at Cooke, Young & Keidan LLP.

This Practice Note looks at parallel loan agreements in PFI and PF2 projects. It considers the background to such agreements (arising out of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996)) and at the purpose and contents of the parallel loan agreement itself. At Budget 2018, delivered on 29 October 2018, the government announced that it would no longer use PFI or PF2 for new government projects (see News Analysis: Budget 2018—what does it mean for infrastructure and housebuilding?). The announcement did not terminate existing PFI or PF2 contracts. This Practice Note remains relevant to parallel loan arrangements associated with those projects. Background to parallel loan agreements To understand what a parallel loan agreement is requires an understanding of the legislative background that gave rise to them. The HGCRA 1996 extends to all 'construction contracts', as defined by the HGCRA and provides a statutory regime which must be adhered to by the parties to a construction contract in relation to payment and adjudication (see Practice Note: Introduction to the HGCRA 1996). Section 113

The purpose of this note is to outline the main areas where parallel options are typically of use, how they impact upon other share incentive arrangements, the acceptance of such plans by HMRC and the practical implications around implementation. The prime use of parallel options is around either adding tax efficiency to an unapproved share incentive arrangement or in dealing with issues around existing arrangements such as underwater options. The practitioner needs to take particular care when implementing parallel options which involve a tax-advantaged scheme such as an enterprise management incentives (EMI) scheme or a company share option plan (CSOP). The key considerations are outlined below (along with HMRC's published views). What are parallel options? Parallel options are employee share option arrangements that are linked to another employee share incentive scheme. They will typically be put in place either to enhance another share plan, eg provide tax efficiency, or to help 'fix' issues with the main incentive scheme, eg in the case of underwater options. Parallel options can relate to either phantom options

When both the old and the new numbering arrangements run alongside each other leading up to an actual number change. It allows customers a transition period to get used to the new arrangements.

In relation to a DCO, the Order (in particular its provisions) will set the parameters of the scheme in relation to form, scale, location and elements of the scheme including any restrictions, or limits of deviation if any subsequent flexibility is to be allowed. Such parameters must relate to the assessment of environmental impacts that have been carried out. There is also a relationship with the "Rochdale Envelope" in terms of how schemes may evolve, the need to understand the relationship between parameters and robust assessment of significant environmental effects.

An intention to benefit charity, or a particular charitable purpose, rather than a particular institution or mode of giving effect to a charitable purpose.

Paramount title describes a superior legal estate or interest in land that takes precedence over another party’s claimed title or right to possession. In practice, a person or body with paramount title can assert a better right to the land than the party currently registered or in occupation, and may displace or qualify that party’s ownership or leasehold interest. The term is largely descriptive rather than statutorily defined, and appears in case law and conveyancing practice across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland with broadly consistent meaning. It can refer, for example, to the Crown’s radical title, a landlord’s superior title to that of a tenant, or a prior unextinguished real right that overrides a later grant. Paramount title is important when assessing priority of competing interests, investigating title defects, considering rectification of the register, or advising on eviction and recovery of possession. It underpins key concepts such as “title paramount to the register”, overriding interests, and the effect of undisclosed or earlier rights revealed by due diligence.

The extent to which any land benefits from an express easement will depend on the construction of the terms of the grant. However, you may find the following points useful: • under section 187 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925), an easement enures

Parens patriae describes the inherent power of the state, usually exercised by the courts, to act as guardian of those who cannot protect their own interests, particularly children and adults lacking capacity. It underpins the court’s role in making welfare decisions where an individual is vulnerable or unable to decide for themselves. In England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, the concept informs the family courts’ and High Court’s inherent jurisdiction over children, and complements statutory regimes such as the Children Act 1989 and Mental Capacity Act 2005. In Ireland, it underlies the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction in child protection and certain medical treatment and wardship cases, alongside legislation such as the Child Care Act 1991 and Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015. In Scots law, similar protective functions arise through the parens patriae jurisdiction of the Court of Session and statutory frameworks for children and adults with incapacity, rather than through a single codified definition. Across the UK and Ireland, parens patriae is primarily a judicial, common law doctrine, shaping decisions on custody, medical treatment, wardship, deprivation of liberty and other protective interventions in the best interests of the person concerned.

A person who has parental responsibility for, or one who cares for, a child or young person.