Legal prism — 2026-09-11

If comparable EU trade mark proceedings were brought and unsuccessful, Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, Article 109(1), would place the fees and essential costs on the losing party.

Under Article 109(7), a request to fix reimbursable costs is admissible only within two months after the costs decision becomes final.

Core issue

The concrete legal position arising from the evidence is exposure to procedural costs if merchandise branding or designs become contested in EU trade mark or design proceedings.

• This is material because withdrawal, defeat, or partial success may shift fees and essential costs to the party promoting or challenging the merchandise.
• Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, Article 109, governs that issue for EU trade marks.
• Community design invalidity and appeal costs are governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, Article 70.
• The evidence does not provide a substantive test for trade mark infringement, so the analysis cannot determine whether “Tametallica” infringed any mark.

Legal assessment

As regards the withdrawn Green Party “Tametallica Tee”, the evidence supports only one legal consequence: a potential dispute was avoided after allegations of infringement arose.

• Essential costs include travel, subsistence, and representative remuneration within the scales laid down by implementing acts under Article 109(2).
• Article 109(2) also limits recovery to one opposing party and, where applicable, to one representative only.
• If each party succeeds on some issues, Article 109(3) permits the Opposition Division, Cancellation Division, or Board of Appeal to apportion costs differently.
• If a party withdraws an EU trade mark application, opposition, application for revocation, application for a declaration of invalidity, or appeal, Article 109(4) assigns the fees and costs to that party.
• If no judgment is delivered, Article 109(5) leaves costs to the discretion of the Opposition Division, Cancellation Division, or Board of Appeal.
• Where the parties enter into their own agreement on costs, Article 109(6) requires the department concerned to take note of that agreement.
• For design-based merchandise, Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, Article 36(4), requires payment of registration and publication fees.
• If publication is deferred, Article 36(4) replaces the publication fee with the deferment fee.
• In a multiple design application, Article 37(4) allows each design to be enforced, licensed, assigned, renewed, surrendered, or declared invalid separately.
• In registered Community design invalidity or appeal proceedings, Article 70(1) requires the losing party to bear the other party’s fees and essential costs.
• Article 70(2) permits a different apportionment of costs where the parties each succeed on some issues or where equity so requires.
• For priced merchandise such as caps, hoodies, mugs, patches, jackets, and shirts, the tax evidence concerns taxable amounts, not election-law controls.
• Council Directive 2006/112/EC, Article 78, provides that the taxable amount includes taxes, duties, levies, charges, and incidental expenses charged by the supplier.
• Council Directive 2006/112/EC, Article 312, defines a taxable dealer’s selling price as all consideration obtained from the customer or a third party, including linked subsidies and incidental expenses.
• For public auctions, Article 339 requires an invoice setting out the auction price, taxes, duties, levies, charges, and incidental expenses, without separately indicating VAT.
• The evidence contains no case law, so there is no precedent to apply by name.

Consequences

Political parties selling or distributing merchandise face practical exposure where slogans, names, parody signs, or graphic designs trigger EU trade mark or design proceedings.

• The immediate commercial response shown by the evidence is withdrawal: the “Tametallica Tee” was withdrawn after trademark-infringement concerns were raised.
• Withdrawal may reduce market friction, but Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, Article 109(4), may still attach costs where withdrawal terminates the listed proceedings.
• A party that loses an EU trade mark opposition, revocation, invalidity, or appeal proceeding may be required to pay the other party’s fees and essential costs.
• A party that succeeds only in part may face a split costs order under Article 109(3) or Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, Article 70(2).
• Merchandise involving multiple registered designs may produce separate outcomes because Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, Article 37(4), treats each design separately for enforcement and invalidity.
• Sellers charging customers for delivery, packaging, transport, insurance, or commission may have those expenses included in the taxable amount under Council Directive 2006/112/EC, Article 78.

GDPR Article 8(2) further provides that the controller must make reasonable efforts to verify parental consent or authorisation, taking into account available technology.

Courts may impose penalties of up to A$99 million if a company is found to have breached the restrictions.

Core issue

Platforms now face an evidentiary problem, not merely a compliance problem, because the proposed amendment would allow eSafety to test age-restriction systems beyond the platform’s own account environment.

Legal assessment

The amendment described in the evidence strengthens pre-sanction investigative powers, because eSafety would be able to require documents, not merely information.

Consequences

For platforms, the immediate consequence is the need to preserve and explain the design, testing, and operation of their age-assurance systems.

Article 56(1) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 illustrates why classification matters: trade measures are applied according to the tariff classification of goods.

Payment flexibility is possible under Article 112(1) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, but only with a guarantee.

Core issue

UK importers of eligible Indian CBAM goods now face a credit-style position, rather than a new full carbon charge by default, because the UK has recognised India’s CCTS price.

• The practical legal question is whether the effective carbon price borne in India may reduce the UK CBAM liability on those goods.
• The rule stated in the evidence is that relief is available only where the importer satisfies the evidential and verification requirements prescribed under UK law.
• For customs-linked goods measures, Article 56(1) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 provides that import and export duty is based on the Common Customs Tariff, while other trade-in-goods measures apply by reference to tariff classification.
• Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 is a Regulation and, within the EU legal order, applies directly in every Member State.
• The evidence does not provide the text of the UK CBAM statute, so the operative UK rule can only be stated as reported: recognised Indian CCTS carbon prices may support carbon price relief.

Legal assessment

The recognition changes the compliance task from simple payment to proof of a prior carbon-price burden.

• Indian exporters gain a commercial advantage only if UK importers can document the effective carbon price attached to the covered goods.
• UK importers remain responsible for claiming relief under UK law and satisfying verification requirements before UK CBAM liability is reduced.
• The evidence states that the benefit applies to eligible Indian goods covered by CBAM, so the first legal filter is product coverage.
• The second filter is whether the goods bore an effective carbon price under India’s CCTS.
• The third filter is whether the UK importer can prove that price in the required form.
• That is relevant here because CBAM coverage also depends on whether imported goods fall within a covered product category.
• The EU customs provisions do not themselves create the UK relief; they illustrate the legal mechanics normally attached to tariff classification, relief conditions, debt notification and payment.

Consequences

For Indian exporters, the immediate commercial consequence is a potential reduction in the landed carbon cost of selling covered goods into the UK.

• For UK importers, the benefit is conditional rather than automatic, because relief depends on evidence and verification.
• A buyer that cannot verify the CCTS price may still face the unreduced UK CBAM charge.
• A buyer that verifies the effective CCTS price can seek relief corresponding to that price.
• The evidence supports no fixed percentage reduction, because the relief corresponds to the effective carbon price borne by the goods.
• The practical effect is therefore formulaic: UK CBAM liability is reduced by the recognised effective CCTS carbon price, provided the UK evidential rules are satisfied.
• Freight-cost evidence points in the opposite commercial direction, because higher shipping costs may still increase final prices.
• The reported export figures show resilience despite that pressure: April-July merchandise exports rose by 17.04 per cent to USD 173.78 billion.
• Imports also rose by 19.27 per cent to USD 292.38 billion, so CBAM relief sits within a broader trade-cost environment.
• The future point to watch is the first UK importer claim in which CCTS payment evidence is tested under the UK CBAM verification requirements.