This is particularly common in sectors such as construction, shipping, and refit projects, where one party may engage specialist contractors on behalf of another. At a practical level, the arrangement often appears straightforward. The agent handles the operational side, while the principal assumes the economic risk.

Under English law, however, the legal consequences of such arrangements are more nuanced. In particular, where an agent contracts in its own name, the assumption that liability can be shifted entirely to the principal is not always secure. The distinction between acting “on behalf of” a principal and acting “in one’s own name” plays a critical role in determining where liability ultimately falls.

At its core, an agency relationship arises when one party (the agent) has authority to act on behalf of another (the principal) and affect its legal position. When everything is clearly set up, and the agent acts purely on behalf of a disclosed principal, the outcome is usually predictable: the principal is bound by the contract, and the agent steps back from the legal relationship. But it is only the starting point. English law does not treat agency as a rigid concept with automatic consequences. Instead, the legal outcome depends on how the agent presents itself to the third party and how the contract is constructed.

Where an agent clearly contracts on behalf of a disclosed principal and does not assume personal responsibility, the principal will normally be liable under the contract. In such circumstances, the agent functions as a true intermediary. However, this position may change where the agent contracts in its own name. Even where it is understood that the agent is acting for a principal, signing and presenting the contract in the agent’s own name may indicate that the agent is itself intended to be a contracting party. In those cases, English law may treat the agent as having assumed personal liability, depending on the construction of the agreement.

From the perspective of the third party, this approach reflects commercial reality. Where a contract is entered into with a named party, the law will generally allow the third party to rely on that party’s liability, unless the contractual documentation clearly indicates otherwise. In other words, even where an agency relationship exists internally, the third party may still be entitled to enforce the contract against the agent.

This is where things become particularly important in practice. Parties often try to manage risk through contractual clauses stating that the principal will be “exclusively responsible” for certain obligations or liabilities. While such provisions can be effective as between the agent and the principal, they do not necessarily affect the rights of third parties, who are not bound by internal arrangements. Typically, these clauses operate only on an indemnity or allocation basis between the contracting parties.

As a result, even where a contract seeks to allocate responsibility to the principal, an agent who contracts in its own name may still face direct claims from third parties. The risk is therefore not eliminated merely by internal drafting.

Another important point is that English law does not provide a single rigid rule determining when an agent will or will not be liable. Instead, everything depends on the objective interpretation of the contract and the surrounding circumstances. In some cases, the agent will not be liable at all; in others, liability may be shared or primarily attached to the agent. The outcome turns on what a reasonable third party would understand the contractual position to be.

From a practical standpoint, form and clarity therefore matter significantly. If an agent intends to avoid personal liability, it must ensure that both the contractual wording and the manner of execution clearly indicate that it is acting solely as agent for a disclosed principal. Conversely, where an agent signs in its own name, there is a material risk that it will be treated as a contracting party, regardless of any internal allocation of responsibility.

In the end, agency is a powerful commercial tool, but it does not override fundamental principles of English contract law. While parties are free to allocate risk between themselves, they cannot automatically impose that allocation on third parties. Where an agent contracts in its own name, it may therefore find itself exposed to liability, even if that was not the commercial intention.

The key point is straightforward. Under English law, it is not enough to decide who should bear the risk. That decision must be clearly and consistently reflected in how the contract is drafted, structured, and executed.

Finally, it should be emphasised that agency clauses, liability allocation provisions, and indemnity mechanisms are highly sensitive drafting elements. Their effectiveness depends heavily on precise wording, contractual structure, and factual context. As such, they should always be carefully considered and drafted with the assistance of experienced legal professionals to ensure that the intended allocation of risk is properly achieved and enforceable in practice.

L'articolo Agency and Risk Allocation under English Law: The Risks of Contracting in One’s Own Name proviene da MEPLAW.NET International Law Firm.

In recent years, a noticeable shift has been happening in the UK business landscape. More and more individuals who start out as self-employed are deciding to set up a Limited Company (Ltd) instead of continuing as sole traders.

At first, this might seem surprising. Being a sole trader is often the simplest way to start a business. There is very little bureaucracy, setup is quick, and you can begin trading almost immediately. For freelancers, consultants, or small side businesses, it often feels like the most natural choice. There is also a sense of full control and informality that many people appreciate in the early stages. However, as a business begins to grow, the limitations of this structure gradually become more apparent. What works well at the beginning does not always remain suitable over time, and that is usually the moment when people start considering a ltd as a more stable and forward-looking option.

Responsability

One of the main reasons behind this transition is the issue of responsibility. When you operate as a sole trader, there is no legal distinction between you and your business. In practical terms, this means that if the business runs into financial difficulties, any debts or obligations are personally yours. It is not just the business at risk, but potentially your own savings and personal assets as well. This level of exposure is often acceptable when the activity is small, but it can become a real concern as turnover increases or when entering into more significant contracts. A Limited Company (ltd), on the other hand, creates a separate legal entity. This separation does not eliminate all risks, but it does provide a layer of protection that many entrepreneurs find reassuring, especially as the scale and complexity of their activities increase.

Taxation

Another important factor is taxation. While the sole trader model works well at lower levels of income, it can become less efficient as profits grow. Sole traders are taxed through income tax bands, combined with national insurance contributions, which can rise progressively and have a noticeable impact on net earnings. A Limited Company is taxed differently. It pays corporation tax on its profits, and the owner can then decide how to extract income, especially through a combination of salary and dividends. This does not automatically mean paying less tax in every situation, and it often requires careful planning, but it does offer more flexibility. For many business owners, this flexibility becomes increasingly valuable as their income becomes more stable or reaches higher levels.

Perception

There is also a less tangible, but still very real, aspect to consider, which is perception. Operating as a Limited Company can make a business appear more structured and established. It can influence how clients, especially medium or large companies, perceive you. In some sectors, working through an Ltd is not just preferred but sometimes expected, particularly in consultancy, IT, and professional services. As a result, many professionals choose this structure not only for financial or legal reasons, but also to position themselves more effectively in a competitive market and to access opportunities that might otherwise be more difficult to obtain.

As the business develops, the advantages of having a more formal structure become even clearer. A Limited Company makes it easier to separate personal and business finances, which in turn helps with organization, transparency, and long-term planning. Having a dedicated business account, clearer records, and a defined structure often leads to better financial discipline. It also simplifies collaboration with accountants or advisors, which becomes more important as the business grows.

At the same time, a company structure opens the door to future development in a way that a sole trader structure does not. For example, bringing in partners, issuing shares, or transferring part of the business becomes much more straightforward. Even if these steps are not immediately relevant, many entrepreneurs prefer to build their activity within a structure that allows for growth without needing to reorganize everything later on.

Of course, it does not mean that forming a Limited Company is always the right choice from day one. It comes with additional responsibilities, such as filing annual accounts, maintaining proper records, complying with legal duties as a director, and often relying on professional accounting support. For this reason, many people still begin as sole traders and only switch to a Limited Company once their business reaches a certain level of stability, predictability, or profitability. In this sense, the growing trend in the UK is not about abandoning the sole trader model entirely, but about recognizing when it is no longer the most suitable option and being ready to evolve.

Conclusions

In the end, the decision depends on the specific circumstances of each business, including its size, level of risk, and future ambitions. What is clear, however, is that the combination of greater protection, increased flexibility, and stronger positioning in the market is leading an increasing number of people to move towards the Limited Company structure as their business grows.

L'articolo UK: why is it more advantageous to choose a Ltd? proviene da MEPLAW.NET International Law Firm.

Who is eligible?

The initiative targets owners and senior participants in the high-end yachting ecosystem, including:

• Superyacht owners, meaning private yacht owners whose vessel is 40 meters or longer, are the primary category highlighted in the announced programs. Ownership alone is not always sufficient; a qualifying connection to the UAE is ordinarily required.
• Maritime industry executives and stakeholders, including CEOs, major shareholders of yacht builders/operating companies, central yacht agents, and similar senior industry figures, may qualify.
• Yacht service providers, who are selected professionals active in yacht maintenance, brokerage, insurance, and key service provision, can be eligible where their role demonstrates a significant economic contribution to the UAE maritime sector.
• Family members, the Golden Visa typically permits the holder to sponsor immediate family members (spouse and children) under the same residency status.

How to apply?

Indeed, the UAE Golden Visa is a federal residency permit valid across all Emirates, but nomination and intake channels differ by emirate. In practice, the two principal operational channels relevant to yacht-sector applicants are:

A — Abu Dhabi: the Golden Quay nomination pathway

Abu Dhabi has introduced a targeted sector program, called “Golden Quay to Abu Dhabi” that explicitly includes superyacht owners and leading maritime professionals. The program is operated in partnership with Yas Marina and the Abu Dhabi Investment Office (ADIO).

Eligible individuals are nominated via Yas Marina (or another program partner). Yas Marina forwards nominations and supporting documents to ADIO for verification and endorsement. ADIO coordinates with the federal immigration authority to complete the Golden Visa issuance once the nomination is approved.

B — Dubai and federal (GDRFA / ICP) routes

Dubai processes Golden Visa applications through the General Directorate of Residency and Foreigners Affairs — Dubai (GDRFA) and also via the federal ICP (Federal Authority for Identity, Citizenship, Customs & Port Security) smart services portal. Dubai’s maritime zones and free zones (for example, Dubai Maritime City, Dubai Harbor) may also facilitate nominations or provide documentary support for applications.

Applicants with qualifying UAE links (e.g, business presence, registered or moored vessels, or recognized sector contribution) may apply directly via GDRFA or the ICP portal. Dubai authorities will review applications and supporting evidence; sector nominations can be channeled through relevant maritime authorities or free zones where appropriate.

What documentation is required?

• Proof of yacht ownership (title deeds, bill of sale);
• Technical documentation confirming the yacht’s length and specifications (to evidence ≥ 40 m where applicable);
• Evidence that the yacht is registered, moored, or managed in the UAE (registry documentation, marina contracts, management agreements);
• Personal identity documents (valid passport) and business documentation (company registration, shareholder registers), where relevant;
• Family documentation (marriage certificate, children’s birth certificates) if family sponsorship is sought.

What does the Golden Visa provide?

Successful applicants under the yacht-linked pathways receive:

• A 10-year renewable UAE residence visa, valid across all Emirates.
• No requirement for a local sponsor or employer to hold the residence permit.
• The ability to sponsor immediate family members (spouse and children).
• Facilitation for longer-term planning, including access to UAE banking, eligibility to purchase property subject to local rules, and improved stability for business and personal planning in the UAE.

If you require assistance with eligibility assessment, documentation, or the full application process for the UAE Golden Visa for yacht owners, MEPLAW’s international team is ready to guide you through every step with precision and confidentiality.

L'articolo The UAE 2025 Golden Visa Initiative for Yacht Owners proviene da MEPLAW.NET International Law Firm.

What Changed After Brexit?

Until 31 December 2020, a trademark registered with the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) was automatically protected in the UK. However, following the official implementation of Brexit, this is no longer the case for new registrations. To maintain continuity, the UK introduced its own trademark registration system. All EU trademarks that were already registered before the end of 2020 were automatically replicated into the UK register at no cost to the trademark holder.

But if your EU trademark was registered after 1 January 2021, it does not enjoy any protection in the UK. If your business has any connection to the UK market such as online sales, local customers, distributors, or even just a website visible in the UK, it is strongly recommended to file a national trademark application to avoid legal and commercial risks.

How Does UK Registration Work?

Registering a trademark in the UK is straightforward. Applications are submitted online through the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), with clear instructions and relatively low fees. If no objections are raised, registration is usually completed within a few months. A UK trademark is valid for 10 years and can be renewed. This protection is especially valuable for businesses that sell in the UK, work with local partners, or plan to open a branch or retail location in the country. Moreover, a registered UK trademark allows you to act quickly against counterfeits, unauthorized use, or attempts by others to register similar marks.

The UK has one of the most respected and stable legal systems in the world when it comes to intellectual property. Its main legislation, the Trade Marks Act 1994, is clear, modern, and effectively enforced. In the event of disputes or infringements, UK courts are known for being independent, efficient, and impartial. The UK is also a member of the Madrid Protocol, which makes it easier to extend trademark protection to other countries using a single international application.

Today, many businesses choose to register their trademarks both in the EU and the UK, even if it means a slightly higher investment. This dual protection reduces legal uncertainty, strengthens brand security, and supports smooth operations in international trade.

Conclusion

If you registered your trademark at the EU level after Brexit, it is important to understand that you are not automatically protected in the UK. To ensure proper coverage in the British market, you must file a separate application with the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). Having full trademark protection allows you to safeguard your brand identity, prevent legal disputes, and build a stronger presence in the UK. In an increasingly competitive business environment, this type of protection is not just a legal formality—it is a smart move for the long-term growth and international reach of your company.

L'articolo Trademark Registration in the UK After Brexit: Is It Necessary if I Already Have an EU Trademark? proviene da MEPLAW.NET International Law Firm.

The UK’s regulatory framework provides clear and straightforward rules. This helps entrepreneurs, especially international ones, manage their businesses confidently without worrying about unclear obligations or complex procedures.

Clear Reporting and Streamlined Processes

One of the biggest advantages is the simplicity of the reporting requirements—how companies prepare their financial statements and keep the authorities updated. In the UK, these processes are much more straightforward than in many other countries. Everything can be done online, at a low cost, and with clear guidance. Small or newly established companies can even follow simplified accounting rules, which means they have fewer documents to submit each year.

For example, a Private Limited Company (Ltd) (the most common business structure), can be incorporated online in less than 24 hours, with no minimum capital requirement and just a few simple steps. After incorporation, annual obligations are few and easy to handle, especially when working with an experienced consultant or accountant.

Companies House (the UK’s registrar for companies) offers a user-friendly online platform that allows businesses to quickly file statements, update company details, and submit financial reports. It means that, business owners can focus more on running their business rather than on paperwork.

This approach also benefits those managing investment companies, holdings, or more complex structures. The UK system works well with trusts, joint ventures, and other international tools and is often used by businesses operating globally.

Clear Compliance and a Strong Legal System

Along with easy administration, legal certainty is a major advantage. The UK has a stable, clear, and predictable legal system.  This is important for investors or business owners: knowing that the rules don’t change every year and the courts remain independent, that increases trust and confidence.

Company law—the Companies Act 2006—is one of the most comprehensive in Europe. It clearly regulates how businesses should be managed, the rights of shareholders, directors’ duties, and what needs to be publicly disclosed. Everything is written in an understandable way, making it easier for those working in the sector to navigate.

A key feature is transparency around the company’s beneficial owners—the individuals who ultimately control it. There is a public register—the People with Significant Control (PSC) Register—that shows who these persons are. This transparency increases trust and makes the system more respected internationally.

The UK also has well-established anti-money laundering rules. The requirements are clear but not too strict. Professionals such as accountants and lawyers are used to assisting foreign clients with practical solutions that avoid unnecessary obstacles.

In case of disputes, the UK’s common law system guarantees efficiency, independence, and reliability. Many international contracts already choose English law because of its clarity and the quality of UK courts’ decisions.

Finally, the UK enjoys a very strong reputation in financial markets and business relationships. Having a registered office or company in the UK can make suppliers, clients, and potential partners view the business more positively.

Overall, the UK remains a great choice for those looking for a strong legal system, easy reporting, and a good reputation worldwide. The reporting rules are fair and clear, and the legal environment supports open and professional business practices. For foreign investors, this means having a reliable European base to operate from, without losing legal certainty.

L'articolo Why Investors Choose the United Kingdom: Simple Reporting, Secure Compliance proviene da MEPLAW.NET International Law Firm.

Foreign companies looking to establish R&D operations in the UK can benefit significantly from these tax incentives. The new framework offers a 20% above-the-line credit on eligible R&D expenses, which is treated as taxable income. In addition, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that spend at least 30% of their total budget on R&D may receive extra benefits, including a 14.5% non-taxable credit and enhanced tax deductions. These changes aim to support businesses that prioritize research and technological advancements.

To further promote UK-based innovation, the government has also introduced stricter regulations on R&D tax relief claims. For example, subcontracted and overseas R&D activities are now subject to restrictions, except in cases where the work cannot reasonably be conducted in the UK. Moreover, the new scheme incorporates a more generous PAYE and NIC cap from the previous SME model, making it easier for businesses to carry forward any excess R&D tax credits.

The decision to merge the schemes was a response to concerns over inefficiencies and fraudulent claims, especially in the SME scheme. By consolidating the two systems, the government aims to prevent abuse while encouraging genuine investment in R&D. This shift is also expected to create a more transparent and predictable framework, helping foster innovation and economic growth in the UK.

Businesses planning to claim tax relief under the new scheme will need to maintain comprehensive records of their R&D activities, including project details, technical documentation, and financial records, in order to meet HMRC’s strict eligibility requirements. Proper documentation will be essential for securing tax benefits and ensuring compliance with the new regulations.

With a more streamlined approach, better support for innovative businesses, and a focus on domestic progress, the new scheme offers a great opportunity for companies to leverage government incentives. By adapting to this new framework, businesses can drive research, develop breakthrough technologies, and contribute to the UK’s economic growth.

L'articolo The UK’s Merged R&D Tax Relief Scheme: Key Changes and Benefits for Businesses proviene da MEPLAW.NET International Law Firm.

On 18 April 2024, the Ruler of Dubai introduced a new Judicial Authority to handle jurisdictional conflicts between the DIFC Courts and other judicial bodies in Dubai. This new authority was created through Dubai Decree No. 29 of 2024 and replaces the previous JJC. The committee has shifted from its previous role of both advising and making judicial decisions to now being the final authority on jurisdictional disputes in Dubai. It comprises senior judges from both the DIFC and Dubai Courts, with the Chief Justice of the Dubai Court of Cassation serving as its chair. This new framework aims to bring more clarity in resolving the conflicts between court decisions, making judicial proceedings smoother and more efficient, and is expected to strengthen confidence in Dubai’s legal system by providing a clearer, unified approach to handling jurisdictional disputes.

Scope:

Under Article 4, the Judicial Authority’s tasks are as follows:

• Determining the competent judicial body for any claim or application where a jurisdictional conflict arises between the DIFC Courts and other Judicial Bodies, and
• Deciding which judgment should be enforced when contradictory rulings are issued on cases involving the same parties and subject matter.

This new scope includes conflicts involving not only the Dubai Courts but also the Rental Disputes Resolution Centre and other judicial committees established by decree, providing a broader and more comprehensive approach.[1]

Thus, if a conflict of jurisdiction arises between the DIFC Courts and any other Judicial Body, or if contradictory judgments have been issued, litigants can request the Judicial Authority to determine which judicial body has the competence to handle the lawsuit, claim, or enforceable judgment.

Effect:

Under Decree 29/2024, the decisions of the Judicial Authority have two key effects. First, they are final and binding on the parties involved in a specific case, particularly regarding jurisdiction. Second, these decisions set judicial precedents that all courts in Dubai, including the DIFC Courts, must follow in the future. This creates consistency in legal rulings across different judicial bodies. [2] It is important to note that if any future decision conflicts with these precedents, it can be challenged through the proper appeal process, ensuring that the rulings of the Judicial Authority continue to influence the legal framework in Dubai.

Composition:

The Judicial Authority under the Decree is composed of senior officials from both the Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts. It is chaired by the President of the Dubai Court of Cassation, with the Deputy Chief Justice of the DIFC Courts serving as Deputy Chairman.

The members also include the Secretary General of the Dubai Judicial Council, the Presidents of the Court of Appeal and the Court of First Instance at Dubai Courts, and two judges selected by the Chief Justice of the DIFC Courts. Unlike before, the two DIFC judges no longer need to come from both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal, and the Chief Justice of the DIFC Courts does not have a seat in the Judicial Authority. This new structure aims to ensure balanced representation from both judicial systems in Dubai.

In conclusion, the creation of the new Judicial Authority under Decree No. 29 of 2024 represents an important step in improving Dubai’s legal system. By resolving jurisdictional conflicts between the DIFC Courts and other judicial bodies, the authority brings more clarity and efficiency to legal processes. Its role in making final decisions and setting binding precedents helps ensure consistency and fairness across different courts. With a well-balanced team of judges from both the DIFC and Dubai Courts, the new structure is designed to strengthen confidence in Dubai’s legal system, providing a clearer and more unified approach to handling legal disputes.

[1] Article 4 of Decree 29/2024

[2] Article 9(b) of Decree 29/2024

L'articolo Dubai: new judicial authority to settle jurisdictional conflicts proviene da MEPLAW.NET International Law Firm.

1) AI-powered Navigation and Safety

AI has a significant impact on navigation and safety in the yachting industry, including:

• AI-powered navigation systems offer precise and current data on water conditions, weather, and other important elements. In fact, by employing AI-powered navigation systems, yachts can navigate with greater efficiency, leading to reduced fuel and energy usage as well as emissions;
• AI can help in weather forecasting and route planning, in order to enable yachts to avoid unfavourable weather conditions;
• Safety systems powered by AI can easily identify potential hazards and promptly alert sailors about imminent dangers in real time;
• Smart AI navigation software can also calculate solar energy production and consumption, factoring in charging time and charger availability;
• The AI trip calculation predicts the yacht’s energy usage by analyzing data from past trips, including estimated speed and considering environmental variables like wind speed and direction, air density and humidity.

2) AI-powered Auto Pilot

Collision avoidance systems driven by AI play a key role in preventing accidents by detecting and warning vessels of potential collisions in advance. In other words, AI can use data from sensors and cameras to help advanced autonomous cruising and autopilot systems react to changes and avoid obstacles in real time, even enabling complex docking manoeuvres which makes sailing safer and more efficient. This system can communicate and synchronize with other yachts and navigation systems, ensuring safer yachting experiences for everyone involved. Consequently, sailors can then focus on other tasks while the boat navigates on its own.

3) Monitoring System and Efficiency

AI is transforming the yacht industry, empowering shipyards to enhance the quality and efficiency of their products and production processes. It touches every aspect of manufacturing, enabling the detection and prevention of defects, optimizing workflows, minimizing waste, and encouraging sustainable design and innovation. This revolutionary technology opens new horizons for the industry, ensuring greater competitiveness and customer satisfaction.

Additionally, AI-powered voyage optimization tools assist shipping companies in increasing their energy efficiency and significantly reducing fuel consumption (about 10%), greenhouse gas emissions, and operating costs by analyzing factors such as weather patterns and currents to determine the most efficient speeds for travel. They also contribute to monitoring and maintaining yachts, which not only extends their lifespan but also reduces the necessity for expensive repairs.

Therefore, AI technology has the capability to handle vast amounts of data. It integrates information from safety manuals and real-time data sources across all digital systems onboard to develop a thorough understanding of both the yacht and its surroundings. This merged data is then inputted into an AI algorithm, which carefully analyzes it and makes informed decisions on navigating the boat safely within the designated range or prevailing weather conditions.

Maritime Law PerspectiveBottom of Form

Transferring control of a ship to an AI system or switching to remote operation leads to legal complexities that necessitate a resolution in the context of automated maritime navigation. Automated maritime navigation refers to the navigation partially conducted through control systems and artificial intelligence. The IMO proposed a Strategic Plan in 2018 in this regard. The IMO’s plan includes a significant strategic goal to “Incorporate emerging and evolving technologies into the regulatory structure.” This entails assessing the advantages provided by such technologies while considering safety and security risks.

The IMO has conducted a regulatory assessment on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) and has established three levels of autonomy on maritime vessels:

• Level 1 – manual, crewed and assisted: Navigated manually by crew members on board, assisted by automatic machinery.
• Level 2 – automated by remote control: A ship navigated manually that can switch to remote control with few crew members or be operated entirely remotely. In the latter case, the on-board crew is substituted by either a land-based crew or a crew on another vessel.
• Level 3 – fully autonomous: The ship makes decisions autonomously to use an algorithmic artificial intelligence system.

For determining the regulatory framework for autonomous vessels, the IMO considered the major conventions, including: SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea), STCW (Training and Certification), SAR (Search and Rescue) and SUA (Suppression of Unlawful Acts). Moreover, Numerous legal scholars and international organizations have recently submitted proposals to address more these issues specifically in the yachting industry. Thus, it is highly probable that we may soon see the introduction of new legal conventions in this regard.

L'articolo Artificial intelligence (AI) in the marine industry proviene da MEPLAW.NET International Law Firm.

Definition of software

First of all it should be defined what is a software and what are the components of it. According to the European Patent Office, the term “software” is ambiguous so that it should be replaced with something more accurate with the meaning which is “computer-implemented invention”. The definition which was conducted by the EPO is a computer-implemented invention is one which involves the use of a computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus, where one or more features are realized wholly or partly by means of a computer program.

These CIIs are protected under the copyright law according to the Berne Convention which is clearly expressed in the WIPO Copyright Treaty Article 4. A copyright is one of the protection of the IPRs and it protects the creations of human minds in the form of literary and artistic works.

Subject of possible patent

CIIs can be called “inventions” either because they are innovations at some point. So that they can be protected under the patent law because it is frankly specified that every invention can be patentable under some circumstances. But for the protection of the patent law it should have some other features. Firstly, the invention should fall under the scope of patentable subject matter. Patentable subject matter is set in the Article 52(1) of the European Patent Convention and the exceptions of the subject matters are expressed in the second clause. According to the 52(2), there is a list of exceptions which kind of inventions cannot be patentable and programs for computers are in the list as cannot be patentable subject matter. However, to the extent of this provision, EPO published the “Patents for software?” and explained how Article 52/2-c of EPC should be interpreted. According to the explanation, these exceptions are for only if they are asked to be granted a patent as such. Therefore, it means that if a computer program has a technical effect on a technical problem, it can be a patentable subject matter. Because when an invention is asked to be patented, the actual request under that is to solve a solid problem via that computer program. Thus, EPO emphasizes that if a computer program provides a “further technical effect” on a specific hardware, it might be patentable. This effect should provide an additional effect to the device more than its normal condition.

After the software is considered as a patentable subject matter, the other requirements for granting a patent are novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. If a software carries all the necessities then it can be patented by EPO for up to 20 years. Under the patent rights, the patented invention cannot be used, produced, distributed, sold or made for commercial purposes without the consent of the patent owner. Patent owners can only exploit their rights in the territories which are granted and in a limited period of time but they cannot renew their patent or extend it.

Copyright protection of software

As we mentioned above, softwares are protected under copyright so that it should be shown what a copyright provides to its owner. Copyright law provides two different rights to its owners: Economic Rights and Moral Rights. Under the economic rights, the owner has the ability to exploit the work economically such as licensing for remuneration or selling the work. The copyright owner has full control over the work and whether it is used or not. Under the moral rights, the author has a right to claim the authorship and he/she has a right to reject the alteration of any kind of changes over the work. According to the Berne Convention Article 7, the duration of a copyright granted has been protected for the author’s lifetime and after his/her death for fifty years. In a comparison between the patent protection, copyrights have a longer time protection than the patent.

Directive 2009/24/EC on the legal protection of computer programs

In respect of the EU approach, there is a directive which sets general principles for the legal protection of computer programs which is called Directive 2009/24/EC on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs. The aim of the Directive is a sort of suggestion to the EU countries to protect the computer programs under the copyright law. The Directive indicates that it is protected any form of expression of a computer program similarly to the WCT Article 4 which states that all computer programs whether their source code or object code, are protected under this provision. Directive emphasizes that the authors of the computer programs have the right to authorize the others to reproduce, translate, adapt or distribute the program.

There are different approaches to the patentability of the computer programs globally and it should be determined what are these touches, their similarities and differences in the jurisdictional point of view. Firstly, it has been discussed the EPO approach and it allows the patentability of the computer programs in terms of such conditions mentioned above. In the light of the EPO’s point of view on the issue, Turkey, which is one of the EPO member countries, has a tendency to exclude the patentability of computer programs as a principle. Although, according to the Industrial Property Code (the law no 6769) Article 82/2-C excludes the computer programs to be patentable but Türk Patent which is the institution issues the patents in Turkey indicates that computer programs cannot be protected as such by patent law unless there is a technical device which enables by that computer program can be patentable.

According to the U.S. approach regarding the software patents, the Supreme Court foreseen a two-step test to analyze the patentability of a claim. Firstly, it has to be clear that if the claim is directed to an abstract idea or not. The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance has explained what this “abstract idea” is. They grouped the abstract ideas as Mathematical Concepts, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes. If a claim is found that directed to one of these abstract idea then second part of the test comes up. As the second part of the test, the applicant should demonstrate that there is an inventive step that allows to convert that abstract idea into a patentable subject matter. Similarly to the EPO approach, the applicant should target to obtain a patent for the result of the claims. Therefore, in a sum of the claims consists of the patentable subject matter and in this context if the application contains the request to be patentable of the abstract claims, this cannot be allowed. Unlike the EPO, USPTO doesn’t seek a “further technical”effect on a specific device. It is primary to be convertible of an abstract idea to a concrete result with an inventive step.

L'articolo PATENT OR COPYRIGHT FOR A SOFTWARE proviene da MEPLAW.NET International Law Firm.

New Uk Company Law obligations apply to:

• All current and prospective company directors;
• Individuals with substantial control over a company (PSCs);
• Anyone acting on behalf of a company in submissions.

The Registrar of Companies of Uk Company Law now has enhanced powers, indicating that companies should anticipate a stricter approach to filed information, empowering Companies House to enhance the precision and quality of data submitted on the public register, including:

• More precise checks will be implemented on company names that are at risk of giving a false or misleading impression to the public;
• Removing inaccurate or incomplete information from the public register with greater efficiency;
• Quickly notifying users about potential issues with the information provided for Companies House;
• Using data matching techniques to identify and eliminate inaccurate information from the register;
• Introducing a new identity verification procedure for specific individuals linked to companies;
• Exchanging information with other government departments and law enforcement agencies.

It should be noted that if companies fail to respond to a formal request from Companies House to provide more information within 14 days, it is considered a criminal offence and they will face serious consequences.

According to the key company law changes under the Act, the companies are required as follows:

1. The registered office address must be “appropriate”

Companies are required to have an “appropriate address” for their registered office, meaning that correspondence sent to the registered office address should be received by someone authorized to act on behalf of the company and the receipt can be confirmed. Due to the new changes, companies are no longer be permitted to use a PO Box as their registered office address.

2. Registered email address

Starting from 4 March 2024, new companies are required to provide a registered email address during their incorporation process. Existing companies, on the other hand, are required to provide a registered email address when they submit their subsequent confirmation statement to Companies House.

3. Statement of lawful purpose

A new requirement for company incorporation requires subscribers to confirm that they are establishing their company for lawful purposes. This is the responsibility of all companies, whether new or existing to make it clear that they are operating lawfully.

4. Changes to the limited partnership

Due to amendments, limited partnerships (LPs) are required to submit their information through authorized agents and provide additional details to Companies House, including: (i) verifying the ID of general partners; (ii) providing a Standard Industrial Classification Code (SIC code) to describe their business activities; (iii) filing an annual confirmation statement.

5. New financial penalty regime

Currently, Companies House only administers the late filing penalty regime based on its civil penalty system. However, since May 2024, the Registrar will have the authority to directly impose financial penalties. The maximum penalty under this new regime will be GBP 10.000.

It is worth mentioning that the above changes are merely part of the measures introduced by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act. Additional measures, such as the proposed new identity verification process for directors, individuals with significant control, and others, will be introduced and executed later.

L'articolo KEY CHANGES TO UK COMPANY LAW FOR BUSINESSES IN 2024 proviene da MEPLAW.NET International Law Firm.