CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 21 February 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into two cartels relating to braking systems. The cartels involved coordinating prices or markets and information sharing. Latest development On 21 February 2018, the Commission issued its infringement decision after the three suppliers settled with the Commission and acknowledged their involvement in the two cartels. Total fines totalling €75,426,000m were imposed. Total fines imposed on each supplier were: • TRW–no fine (as a result of being awarded immunity)• Bosch–€31,420,000 (as a result of being granted immunity, Bosch was not fined for its involvement in one of the cartels)• Continental–€44,006,000 Parties • TRW, based in the USA (now ZF TRW, based in

This Practice Note explains: • the concept of branch incorporation relief, which is available under UK domestic law in respect of: ◦ corporation tax on chargeable gains—see: Branch incorporation relief for chargeable gains, and • corporation tax arising under the intangible fixed assets (IFA) regime in Part 8 of Corporation Tax Act 2009—see: Branch incorporation relief for IFAs • the broader corporation tax relief available in the UK upon the incorporation of an EU branch as a result of the implementation of the Mergers Tax Directive 2009/133/EC, and • some of the practical and further tax issues arising on branch incorporation Relief cannot be claimed both under the branch incorporation provisions and the provisions implementing the Mergers Tax Directive. Relief on incorporation of overseas branch Where a UK resident company carrying on a trade outside the UK through a permanent establishment (PE) transfers the whole or part of that trade to a non-UK resident company, and the transfer gives rise to a chargeable gain, the UK resident company can make a claim

This Practice Note sets out the considerations that right holders should take into account when protecting and enforcing their brands in the Metaverse. It covers the points to consider when planning the scope of trade mark or design protection, including identifying and plugging gaps in protection. It also sets out issues to consider when licensing a brand for use in the Metaverse. When it comes to enforcement, this Practice Note deals with monitoring potential infringements, identifying infringers, potential causes of action, jurisdiction issues, remedies and general enforcement challenges. It concludes with some practical tips to assist right holders when protecting and enforcing their brands. What is the Metaverse? There is no single definition of the ‘Metaverse’, however, it is generally accepted that the Metaverse encompasses immersive environments, often utilising augmented or virtual reality. The immersive environments which make up the Metaverse also have their own fully functioning economy. There are broadly two schools of thought on how the Metaverse will operate: • decentralised:

This Checklist covers the key considerations when formulating a strategy for brand protection online. This Checklist should be used alongside Practice Note: Brand protection online—strategy. Protecting the brand Have you put in place the correct protection? • are appropriate trade mark and other relevant registrations in place? • do you have a global filing and enforcement strategy to prevent issues arising in first-to-file countries? • are you monitoring unauthorised activity? (See below for details) • have you devised an enforcement strategy with criteria to prioritise certain infringements? • are you prepared to take swift action by using take-down procedures? • have you ensured that genuine brand sites have a strong online presence? • are you taking advantage of technological developments to make genuine items harder to copy? • do you have good working relations with customs and law enforcement agencies? • are third parties aware that the business will vigorously protect its brands? Do you have robust compliance measures in place? • do you have a website IP notice which puts third parties on notice of your rights? • do

Having an online presence is essential for most brands. Many advertise and sell their products online—on their own websites or via online marketplaces such as eBay and Amazon. They may make use of services such as key word advertising to promote their products. They also often have social media accounts on platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube or TikTok and may work with influencers to increase brand awareness. It is important for brands to ensure that their IP rights are properly protected and enforced so that they can be used effectively online while maintaining the brand’s reputation. A brand protection strategy for online activities is therefore essential. This Practice Note sets out guidance for brand owners when formulating a strategy to protect their brand online. It summarises the challenges facing brand owners online (including infringement of IP rights and damage to reputation) and sets out practical solutions for dealing with them. It covers strategies for brand protection, portfolio management, compliance and monitoring. It also considers possible legal action that might be taken against individuals,

Law360, London: MGA Entertainment Inc (MGA), the company behind Bratz dolls, owes no compensation to a rival despite running a campaign of 'undeniable' antitrust violations and making unjustified threats of patent infringement litigation, a London judge said on 16 June 2025.

This table summarises all completed investigations by Brazil’s competition authority (the Brazilian Administrative Council for Economic Defense—the CADE) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions since 2018. Note—only investigations that have been made public are included in this table. 2025 Investigations under Article 36(1) of Law No. 12,529/2011 Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Electricity meters• Elo Sistemas Eletrônicos• Fae Ferragens e Aparelhos Elétricos (now Fae Sistemas de Medição)• Dowertech da Amazônia Indústria de Instrumentos Eletrônicos• 11 individuals Restrictive agreements and cartel • Infringement decision announced—10/12/2025; fines totalling BRL 73m imposed Healthcare sector• Federação Nacional dos Estabelecimentos de Serviços de Saúde • Sindicato dos Hospitais, Casas de Saúde e Laboratórios de Pesquisas e Análises Clínicas do Estado de Pernambuco Restrictive agreements and cartel • Settlement decision announced—06/08/2025; fines totalling BRL 350m imposed School transportation• Mayfran Locação de Veículos e Transportes• New Hope Terceirização e Transportes Catanduva Restrictive agreements and cartel • Infringement decision announced—27/02/2025; fines totalling BRL 1.6m imposed Investigations under Article 36(4) of Law No. 12,529/2011 The CADE did not issue any decisions under Article

Law360, London: BHP urged the Court of Appeal on 20 January 2026 to grant it permission to appeal against an order allowing Brazilian municipalities bringing litigation over the collapse of a dam to continue criminal contempt proceedings because it raises issues of 'general public importance.'

Brazil has formally initiated a dispute at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) against the US over new tariff measures. According to Brazil, the US has imposed a blanket 10% duty on all Brazilian products and an additional 40% duty on specific goods of Brazilian origin. Brazil argues that these measures violate the US' obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 and the WTO's Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), particularly because the US opted for unilateral tariff actions instead of following the WTO's dispute resolution procedures.

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Brazil and throughout the world are met, see Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Brazilian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Brazil? Release of relevant institutional documents Since the enactment of the Brazilian Competition Law (No. 12,529/2011) (Brazilian Competition Law) in 2012, the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) has focused in increasing its institutionalization by issuing guidelines and other instruments on relevant topics, such as gun-jumping practices, remedies in merger cases, and the review of mergers. CADE’s most recent merger-control guidelines were issued in 2024: (i) the guidelines on the review of non-horizontal mergers (the so called ‘V+ Guidelines’), which aim at strengthening the authority’s toolkit towards the assessment of merger cases in Brazil together with the horizontal merger guidelines (the so called ‘H Guidelines’); and (ii) directions on best practices for adoption of trustees or similar devices in mergers or other antitrust cases (the so called ‘Trustee

Brazil has requested World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute consultations with the US concerning additional duties imposed on Brazilian products following two investigations under section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974. The request concerns an additional 25% ad valorem duty on all Brazilian products and an additional 12.5% ad valorem duty on Brazilian products, following an investigation focused on allegations relating to forced labour. Brazil contends that the duties are inconsistent with various provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 and the Understanding Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes. After 60 days, if consultations fail to resolve the dispute, Brazil may request adjudication by a panel.

MLex: The Brazilian data protection authority this year aims to start ‘with assertiveness’ the process for Brazil and the EU to comply with each other's rules on data transfers, and to formalise Brazil's adhesion process to the Council of Europe's Convention 108+, said agency Director Arthur Sabbat.