Greenwashing is a form of marketing that misrepresents a product, service or practice as having positive environmental effects,1 thereby misleading consumers and preventing them from making an informed purchasing decision.2 Several initiatives have been launched around the world to counter this practice. In California, a law requires business entities to disclose information in support of environmental claims.3 In France, ads featuring environmental claims such as “carbon-neutral” and “net zero” must include a quick response (QR) code that links to the studies and data supporting such claims.4 Within the European Union, a proposal for a directive was published with a view to possibly banning generic terms like “environmentally friendly.”5 In South Korea, the Korea Fair Trade Commission proposed an amendment to its Guidelines for Review of Environment-Related Labeling and Advertising that would simplify the process of issuing fines to businesses engaged in greenwashing.6 The Parliament of Canada seemingly followed suit by tabling Bill C-597 on November 30, 2023, which introduces a provision into the Competition Act8aimed at improving the means to fight greenwashing. Amended on May 28, 2024, Bill C-59 finally received royal assent on June 20, 2024, date on which it partially came into force. Because the provision will apply to “any person,” all businesses will be subject to it, regardless of their size or legal form. Amendments to the Competition Act regarding environmental claims The Competition Act now allows9 the Commissioner of the Competition Bureau (the “Bureau”) to inquire into10 the conduct of a person who promotes 1) a product by making an environmental claim or warranty11 or 2) any business interest by making representations about the environmental benefits of a business or business activity. Claim concerning a product or service Insofar as a business or person is unable to demonstrate a product’s benefits for protecting the environment or mitigating the environmental and ecological effects of climate change, the Commissioner of Competition will be entitled to apply to a court for an order requiring such business or person to (i)cease promoting the product on the basis of a non-compliant environmental claim or warranty, (ii)publish a corrective notice and (iii)pay an administrative monetary penalty12 of up to, for a legal person, the greater of $10 million and three times the value of the benefit derived from the deceptive conduct, or, if that amount cannot be reasonably determined, 3% of the legal person’s annual worldwide gross revenue. The penalty for each subsequent offence could be as high as $15 million. A “product” within the meaning of the Competition Act may be an article (real or personal property of every description) or a service.13 This new provision expressly requires any person or business to base their environmental claims on “an adequate and proper test”.14 A “test” within the meaning of this Act consists in an analysis, verification or assessment intended to demonstrate the result or alleged effect of a product. It does not necessarily have to be a scientific method nor do the results need to meet a test of certainty, as the courts have generally interpreted the term “proper” to mean fit, apt, suitable or as required by the circumstances.15 With regard to misleading claims, the courts16 have clarified the nature of the criteria that must be considered to determine whether a particular test is “adequate and proper.” Thus, an adequate and proper test depends on the claim made as understood by the common person. The test must also meet the following criteria: It must be reflective of the risk or harm which the product is designed to prevent or assist in preventing. It must be done under controlled circumstances or in conditions which exclude external variables or take account in a measurable way for such variables. It must be conducted on more than one independent sample wherever possible (e.g., destruction testing may be an exception). The results need not be measured against a test of certainty, but must be reasonable given the nature of the harm at issue and establish that it is the product itself which causes the desired effect in a material manner. It must be performed regardless of the size of the seller’s organization or the anticipated volume of sales.17 Representations accompanying product that come from a person outside Canada are deemed to be made by the person who imports the product into Canada.18 General claims about a company’s activities While Bill C-59 was initially intended to cover only environmental statements, warranties or guarantees regarding products, the assented version of the bill provides that any representation made regarding the benefits of a business or business activity for protecting or restoring the environment or mitigating the environmental and ecological causes or effects of climate change are subject to a Bureau inquiry.19 As an example cited by the Bureau, a company’s claims about being “carbon neutral” or that it commits to becoming so within a certain number of years20 would constitute “representations of the benefits of a business or business activity in mitigating the causes of climate change.” The company making such claims must be able to demonstrate that they are based on “adequate and proper substantiation” obtained using an “internationally recognized methodology”.21 The Competition Act does not specify which internationally recognized methods may be used for this purpose. Should the substantiation the company uses be inadequate, improper or obtained using a method that is not recognized internationally, it will be subject to the same consequences as those mentioned in the previous section.22 Regardless of whether the claims concern a product or service or a business activity, the persons concerned are allowed to defend themselves under the Competition Act by establishing that they exercised due diligence.23 What impact will these amendments really have? Notwithstanding the proposed legislative amendment, the Competition Act already covers false or misleading representations with respect to green advertising.24 The current provisions already prohibit making representations to the public that are false or misleading in a material respect.25 In recent years, several complaints of greenwashing have been lodged with the Bureau on that basis, prompting it to open a number of investigations. Some have led to major settlements involving companies having made representations regarding their products.26/27/28/29 In all of these cases, the heavy burden of establishing that the business’s environmental claim was false or misleading fell on the Bureau. The proposed amendments to the Competition Act would change this by shifting the burden of proof onto businesses. The onus would therefore be on them to demonstrate that their product benefits the environment in some way or mitigates the environmental and ecological effects of climate change or that its claims are based on adequate and proper substantiation obtained using an internationally recognized method. These new legislative provisions now confirm what was already a general standard since 1999, and they ease the Bureau’s burden of proof. In addition to the Competition Act, other laws applicable in Quebec provide a general framework for greenwashing, such as the Consumer Protection Act.30Under this Act, no merchant, manufacturer or advertiser may, by any means whatsoever, make false or misleading claims to a consumer, which implicitly includes greenwashing.31 To determine whether a representation constitutes a prohibited practice, the general impression it gives, and, as the case may be, the literal meaning of the terms used therein must be taken into account. In particular, it is prohibited to falsely ascribe particular advantages to a product or service, or to claim that a product has a particular feature or ascribe certain characteristics of performance to it.33 Offences are subject to criminal34 and civil35 penalties. Private remedies Another new measure to combat greenwashing in the Competition Act is the possibility for any person (individual, organization, competitor, etc.) to apply directly to the Competition Tribunal for an order against a business making environmental claims or representations about a product, service or activities without adequate substantiation.36 In the first version of Bill C-59, only the Commissioner of Competition could institute such proceedings before the Tribunal.37 However, the Competition Tribunal must first give leave to make such an application.38 The Tribunal’s power to give leave is largely discretionary, meaning that the Tribunal may grant it if it deems that it is in the public interest to do so.39 This new measure will come into force in one year on June 20, 2025.40 Best practices It is crucial for a company to adopt and display a realistic image of its environmental impact based on credible data and facts. Making sure that claims are legally compliant is not all that’s at stake. A business’s failure to do the above is likely to seriously harm not only its reputation, but also its relationship with its stakeholders. Thus, before claiming to be “green,” businesses must consider the following questions. Are the real motivations behind the business’s sustainability commitments clear, legitimate and convincing? Is sustainable development an integral part of the business strategy? Is it applied when addressing key business issues and taking new actions? Does the company have a sustainable development policy that is credible and based on relevant issues? Was it developed collaboratively with and approved by its Board of Directors? Has the company set specific, clear, measurable and achievable objectives and targets? Considerations for public companies As concerns public companies subject to continuous disclosure obligations under Canadian securities legislation (“reporting issuers”), these considerations are set against a backdrop of increasing pressure from investors, including institutional investors, and others for greater transparency on climate-related issues. Although climate-related disclosure requirements for Canadian reporting issuers are still relatively limited, many issuers choose to voluntarily disclose such information, for example in sustainability reports. Reporting issuers must pay particular attention to their communications, which could constitute greenwashing within the meaning of the Competition Act and give rise to the penalties and other consequences mentioned above. This is another risk to add to reporting issuers’ liability in the secondary market for misrepresentation and failure to make disclosures within prescribed time limits. As far as climate issues are concerned, the risk arises in particular from overestimating or inadequately disclosing how activities contribute to protecting the environment or how they mitigate the environmental and ecological effects of climate change. The current move towards standardized methodologies and frameworks and the forthcoming adoption of binding rules on climate-related disclosures should help to limit greenwashing in this context. In the meantime, reporting issuers can reduce the risk of greenwashing by following a well-established international methodology and by including disclaimers for forward-looking statements adapted to the risks and uncertainties inherent to the climate-related information they provide. Conclusion The new provisions of the Competition Act are already having an impact. As a precaution, some companies have removed ads, promotional documents and websites containing claims that certain activities were undertaken specifically to mitigate the causes of climate change. Parliament’s message could not be clearer: Shifting the burden of proof onto businesses means closing the door on an era when products, services and business activities could be marketed as green in the absence of tangible evidence. Definition of the Autorité des marchés financiers: 8 questions and answers about carbon credits and related concepts | AMF (lautorite.qc.ca). Definition of the Competition Bureau: Environmental claims and greenwashing (canada.ca). Assembly Bill No. 1305: Voluntary carbon market disclosures, California, 2023. Read it here: Bill Text – AB-1305 Voluntary carbon market disclosures. Décret no 2022-539 du 13 avril 2022 relatif à la compensation carbone et aux allégations de neutralité carbone dans la publicité, Journal officiel de la République française, 2022. Read it here: Légifrance – Publications officielles – Journal officiel – JORF n° 0088 du 14/04/2022 (legifrance.gouv.fr). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU as regards empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and better information, Council of the European Union, Brussels, 2022. Read it here: pdf(europa.eu). Read it here: KFTC Proposes Amendment to Review Guidelines Regarding Greenwashing – Kim & Chang (kimchang.com). An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, 44th Parliament, 1st Session. Read it here: Government Bill (House of Commons) C-59 (44-1) – First Reading – Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023 – Parliament of Canada. The Bill is currently at second reading in the House of Commons. R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34. These provisions came into force on June 20, 2024. This power to make inquiry would be available, as the Competition Act already provides, upon receipt of a complaint signed by six persons who are not less than 18 years of age or in any situation where the Commissioner has reason to believe that a person has contravened section 74.01 of the Competition Act (see R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, ss. 9 and 10). An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, 44th Parliament, 1st Session, section 236. Read it here: Government Bill (House of Commons) C-59 (44-1) – First Reading – Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023 – Parliament of Canada; section 236 of this Act adds paragraphs b.1 and b.2 to subsection 74.01(1) of the Competition Act. Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, article 74.1. Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, subsection 2(1). An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, 44th Parliament, 1st Session, para. 236(1). Read it here: Government Bill (House of Commons) C-59 (44-1) – First Reading – Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023 – Parliament of Canada The Commissioner of Competition v. Imperial Brush Co. Ltd. and Kel Kem Ltd. (c.o.b. as Imperial Manufacturing Group), 2008 CACT 2, paras. 122 et seq. Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, section 74.09: “courts” means the Competition Tribunal, the Federal Court and the superior court of a province. The Commissioner of Competition v. Imperial Brush Co. Ltd. and Kel Kem Ltd. (c.o.b. as Imperial Manufacturing Group), 2008 CACT 2. Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, subsections 74.03(1) and (2). An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, 44th Parliament, 1st Session, section 236. Read it here: Government Bill (House of Commons) C-59 (44-1) – First Reading – Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023 – Parliament of Canada; paragraph b.2 of section 74.01 of the Competition Act was added by amendment adopted on May 28, 2024. Letter from Anthony Durocher and Bradley Callaghan to the Honourable Pamela Wallin dated May 31, 2024. Read it here: BANC_Follow-up_CompetitionBureau_e.pdf (sencanada.ca). An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, 44th Parliament, 1st Session, section 236. Read it here: Government Bill (House of Commons) C-59 (44-1) – First Reading – Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023 – Parliament of Canada. Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, article 74.1. Competition Act, subsection 74.1(3). Louis-Philippe Lampron, “L’encadrement juridique de la publicité écologique fausse ou trompeuse au Canada : une nécessité pour la réalisation du potentiel de la consommation écologique?” Revue de Droit de l’Université de Sherbrooke, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2005, p. 474. Read it here: A:\lampron.wpd (usherbrooke.ca). Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, paragraph 74.01(1)(a). Amanda Stephenson, Des groupes écologistes misent sur la Loi sur la concurrence(Environmental groups banking on the Competition Act), October 1, 2023, La Presse. Read it here: Des groupes écologistes misent sur la Loi sur la concurrence | La Presse. Brenna Owen, Un groupe accuse Lululemon d’« écoblanchiment » et demande une enquête (A group accuses Lululemon of “greenwashing” and calls for an investigation) February 13, 2024, La Presse. Read it here: Un groupe accuse Lululemon d’« écoblanchiment » et demande une enquête | La Presse. Martin Vallières, “Gare aux tromperies écologiques” (Beware of greenwashing), January 26, 2022, La Presse. Read it here: Écoblanchiment | Gare aux tromperies écologiques | La Presse; Keurig Canada to pay $3 million penalty to settle Competition Bureau’s concerns over coffee pod recycling claims – Canada.ca. The Commissioner of Competition v. Volkswagen Group Canada Inc. and Audi Canada Inc., 2018 Competition Tribunal 13. Consumer Protection Act, CQLR c. P-40.1, ss. 219, 220 and 221. Definition of the Competition Bureau: Environmental claims and greenwashing (canada.ca). Richard v. Time Inc., 2012 SCC 8, paras. 46 to 57. Consumer Protection Act, CQLR c. P-40.1, ss. 220 and 221. Consumer Protection Act, CQLR c P-40.1, ss. 277 to 279: Fines range from $600 to $15 000 in the case of a natural person and $2 000 to $100 000 in the case of a legal person. Offenders convicted a second time are liable to fines twice as high as those prescribed. Id. at ss. 271 to 276: Consumers may request that the contract be annulled, that the merchant’s obligation be performed or that their obligation be reduced, among other things. For civil matters only; An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, 44th Parliament, 1st Session, subsection 254(1). See subsection 103.1(1) of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, effective before June 20, 2024. An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, 44th Parliament, 1st Session, subsection 254(1). Id. at 254(4). An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, 44th Parliament, 1st Session, section 272.

At a time when Canada and many other countries are taking steps to protect users from harm online,1 a decision was handed down by the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the “Court”) on January 15, 2024, regarding the conduct of a competitor with respect to complaints about intellectual property infringement made on Amazon’s e-commerce website. Amazon’s platform is similar to many other e-commerce platforms that have a complaint mechanism for third-party use of intellectual property in violation of the rights of the real owners thereof. The complaint mechanism makes it possible for a complainant to submit an intellectual property infringement claim regarding content to which it has a good faith right in order to partially or fully remove the content in question from the pages of the alleged infringing party published on Amazon’s platform. Such a mechanism has its purpose, as it is an effective way of tracking down counterfeiters. As we will see in Keezio Group, LLC v. The Shrunks' Family Toy Company Inc.,2 the mechanism can also be used maliciously. The facts and the plaintiff’s allegations In this case, complaints were lodged by a competitor of the company that was the subject of the complaints, with both entities operating in the inflatable bed industry. Keezio Group, LLC (“Keezio”) markets the “Hiccapop Inflatable Toddler Travel Bed” (the “Hiccapop Bed”), while The Shrunks’ Family Toy Company Inc. (“The Shrunks”) offers inflatable beds consisting of a mattress placed in an inflatable bed frame. Both companies primarily sell their products on the Amazon retail platform. In February 2017, Amazon informed Keezio that it had received a report of trademark infringement regarding the Hiccapop Bed, the complainant being identified as Mr. Cirjak of The Shrunks. Subsequently, in accordance with the applicable process, Amazon removed the product from Keezio’s product-listing pages on its website. It is worth noting that assessing the substantive validity of a complaint is not part of Amazon’s complaints handling process. On or about April 17, 2017, Keezio received another notice. The complaints of 2017 were eventually withdrawn and the page featuring the Hiccapop Bed was restored. In November 2019, Keezio received two more notices of complaints from Amazon regarding violations similar to those received about two years prior. The first of these two notices, sent on November 22, 2019, referred to trademark infringement. Amazon thus removed the page in question, which contained a chart comparing Keezio’s products with The Shrunks’ products. Keezio asked for clarification of this alleged infringement but received no response from The Shrunks. Having received no details about the infringement from The Shrunks, Keezio ultimately changed its webpage to remove all mentions of “The Shrunks”, replacing them with “Rhymes with Skunks”. Although Amazon informed Keezio in a message in November 2019 that it would restore its content, the evidence does not clearly establish whether this was done. The second notice of infringement, dated November 28, 2019, concerned an allegation of copyright infringement on six webpages for the Hiccapop Bed. The pages were delisted on or about November 28, 2019, and eventually reinstated on December 2, 2019. The Shrunks denied having filed the complaints of 2019. However, the Court did not hesitate to conclude that The Shrunks was also behind these complaints. Issues at bar about the complaints There were many issues in this case, and some claims were eventually withdrawn. We will focus on the two complaints made in 2019. Specifically, Keezio argued that the complaints that The Shrunks had lodged with Amazon were unfounded, resulting in a loss of business for Keezio. In particular, the Court analyzed section 7 of the Trademarks Act.3 To succeed in such a claim, the plaintiff must prove (i) that a false or misleading statement was made (ii) that tends to discredit the business, goods or services of a competitor, (iii) resulting in damages. The Court held that the person making the statements need not know of their falsity in order to satisfy these criteria. Findings of the Court (i) The allegation of trademark infringement in the comparative chart The trademark infringement complaint concerned a comparative chart featuring both Hiccapop Bed and The Shrunks products, with comparative data on the features of both products. The data itself was not challenged. The complaint related to the unauthorized use of The Shrunks’ registered trademark in the chart. Basing itself on the landmark decision in Clairol International Corp. et al v. Thomas Supply and Equipment Co.,4 the Court concluded that Keezio’s comparative chart did not amount to “use” of The Shrunks trademark pursuant to s. 4(1) of the Trademarks Act, and that therefore said chart did not constitute trademark infringement. Accordingly, the Court determined that The Shrunks’ complaint that Keezio infringed its trademark was unfounded. The Court further concluded that the comparative chart was not contrary to section 22 of the Trademarks Act:5 The mere depiction of a competitor’s trademark in comparative advertising does not in itself depreciate the value of the goodwill attached to a product. (ii) The allegation of copyright infringement The copyright infringement notice contained six Amazon Standard Internal Catalog Identification Numbers (ASINs), which identified six webpages that were sales pages for the Hiccapop Bed. The Court ruled that the allegation of copyright infringement in question was unfounded, as it related to a bed, which is a useful article sold in a quantity of more than 50. The reproduction of the bed design was therefore not covered by subsection 64(2)6 of the Copyright Act. The Court found The Shrunks liable for the two complaints made in November 2019, which it determined to be false or misleading as the allegations of trademark and copyright infringement were unfounded. The Court stated that the complaints tended to discredit Keezio’s business because they misled Amazon into removing Keezio’s product listing pages. On this point, the Court referred to a passage from the Federal Court decision Yiwu Thousand Shores E-Commerce Co. Ltd. v. Lin.7 With regard to damages, the Court determined that Keezio’s evidence regarding the calculation of damages was inadequate on several counts, but nonetheless awarded damages based on a decrease in Keezio’s sales on the dates of delisting. The Court did not hold The Shrunks’ principal personally liable and did not grant a permanent injunction or punitive damages. It also dismissed The Shrunks’ counterclaim for copyright infringement, and ordered The Shrunks to pay Keezio costs, excluding taxes and disbursements. Comments This decision highlights how crucial it is for complainants to be serious when filing complaints. The complaints mechanism on platforms such as Amazon is an extremely useful and effective tool for reporting rights violations, provided that use of such mechanisms is made in good faith and based on solid legal foundations. Although such a mechanism is easy to use, the rights involved must absolutely be analyzed in advance, as an ill-founded complaint can result in harm—which can be considerable—especially when the platform has a global reach. In such a case, the removal of a webpage can result in significant damages. It is therefore essential to exercise due diligence, as a country-by-country analysis of rights can reveal different legal situations and rights holders from one country to another. Not only must competitors carefully consider and weigh their actions, but e commerce website operators must also be vigilant and respond promptly to requests for removal and geographic restrictions. Amazon recently experienced a situation like this when a UK court ruled against it.8 The decision dealt with a targeting operation on Amazon’s website, where sales offers or advertisements were intentionally directed at consumers in the UK where the trademarks were not owned in that country by the same company offering the products for sale. A word to the wise! See Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, which establishes a regime to address such harm. Keezio Group, LLC v. The Shrunks' Family Toy Company Inc., 2024 BCSC 64. Section 7 of the Trademarks Act: Prohibitions 7. No person shall - make a false or misleading statement tending to discredit the business, goods or services of a competitor; - direct public attention to his goods, services or business in such a way as to cause or be likely to cause confusion in Canada, at the time he commenced so to direct attention to them, between his goods, services or business and the goods, services or business of another; - pass off other goods or services as and for those ordered or requested; or - make use, in association with goods or services, of any description that is false in a material respect and likely to mislead the public as to (i) the character, quality, quantity or composition, (ii) the geographical origin, or (iii) the mode of the manufacture, production or performance of the goods or services. Clairol International Corp. v. Thomas Supply & Equipment Co. 55 C.P.R. 176, 1968 CanLII 1280. Section 22 of the Trademarks Act: 22.Depreciation of goodwill - 22 (1) No person shall use a trademark registered by another person in a manner that is likely to have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill attaching thereto. Subsection 64 (2) of the Copyright Act: 64 (2) Non-infringement re certain designs Where copyright subsists in a design applied to a useful article or in an artistic work from which the design is derived and, by or under the authority of any person who owns the copyright in Canada or who owns the copyright elsewhere, - the article is reproduced in a quantity of more than fifty, or - where the article is a plate, engraving or cast, the article is used for producing more than fifty useful articles, it shall not thereafter be an infringement of the copyright or the moral rights for anyone, - to reproduce the design of the article or a design not differing substantially from the design of the article by (i) making the article, or (ii) making a drawing or other reproduction in any material form of the article, or - to do with an article, drawing or reproduction that is made as described in paragraph (c) anything that the owner of the copyright has the sole right to do with the design or artistic work in which the copyright subsists. Yiwu Thousand Shores E-Commerce Co. Ltd. v. Lin, 2021 CF 1040. See paragraph 58 of this decision: [58] I agree with ThousandShores that the Respondent made false allegations and misstatements to Amazon.ca in the Takedown Requests, at least one of which was made after the Respondent’s receipt of the October 2020 Letter. ThousandShores had no ability to respond directly to his allegations. The absence of any evidence of use of the OHUHU trademark by the Respondent and the likelihood of confusion between the parties’ marks means the Impugned Registration is invalid. Accordingly, the Respondent’s statements regarding the Impugned Registration, the inauthenticity of ThousandShores’ OHUHU Goods and its infringement of the Respondent’s rights were false. The statements clearly tended to discredit ThousandShores’ business, the OHUHU Storefront, and the OHUHU Goods. They misled Amazon.ca, causing it to remove ThousandShores’ listings for the OHUHU Goods with a resulting loss of profits. ThousandShores’ only recourse was to provide evidence of authorization or license by the Respondent, or to challenge the validity of the Impugned Registration. Lifestyle Equities CV and another v Amazon UK Services Ltd and others [2022] EWCA Civ 552, upheld by the Supreme Court on March 6, 2024 ([2024] UKSC 8).