Packaging meaning

Under an asset purchase, the purchaser takes only the selected assets and assumes only the specific liabilities it opts to accept, as detailed in the asset purchase agreement. After completion, issues highlighted by due diligence may require the purchaser to address environmental, health and safety (EHS) matters. For example, the purchaser might need to transfer or apply for a permit, join a recognised packaging waste compliance scheme, or strengthen health & safety documentation following completion. Typical post-completion EHS actions in asset purchase transactions include the following: transferring environmental permits verifying whether the deal triggers any new duties under environmental regimes, such as producer responsibility, energy efficiency and carbon schemes tackling points raised in environmental audits and reports, and any contractual conditions advising on the scope of environmental insurance and other risk-mitigation strategies putting in place reliance agreements or collateral warranties to allow reliance on environmental reports Transfer of environmental permits In an asset sale, the name of the operator/permit...

In this issue: Energy efficiency and buildings Energy for environmental lawyers Environmental enforcement and prosecutions ESG and sustainability Hazardous substances and chemicals Nature, biodiversity and habitat conservation Waste Waste producer responsibility regimes Water, flooding and drainage Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Latest Q&A Energy efficiency and buildings The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has issued its 2025 post‑implementation review (PIR) of the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/1643). Using Phase 3 compliance notifications from the Environment Agency, together with unpublished interim data from Phase 3 action plans, and building on the 2020 PIR, it recommends holding off any major amendments to the ESOS Regulations until a full evaluation ends in May 2026, after which a comprehensive PIR will be completed. The research evaluates how energy audits and reporting identify and deliver energy efficiency savings across organisations. See: LNB News 14/08/2025 6...

In this issue: Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Consumer protection Contracts Data protection Sale and supply of goods Supplier management LexTalk®Commercial: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers ASA rulings—6 November 2024 The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received two complaints about CurrencyWave and Eurostar. Complainants said CurrencyWave’s ad wrongly implied Financial Conduct Authority regulation and used inaccurate price comparisons. For Eurostar, concerns were that Instagram and Facebook ads overstated the availability of £39 fares and omitted key information. The ASA upheld both. See: LNB News 06/11/2024 51. ASA publishes its Vaping Project Review on vaping ads targeted at under-18s The ASA has issued its Vaping Project Review, detailing outcomes from investigations, tech-assisted monitoring, enforcement, stakeholder engagement and advisory work on ads aimed at under-18s since June 2023. It found influencers, companies, agencies and vaping brands posting paid and organic content, plus brand...

The European Commission’s determination on whether buyers depend on domestic packaging suppliers, or whether the arena is EEA‑wide, will dictate if the merger triggers competition issues for regulators evaluating cross‑border supply dynamics. In earlier probes, the watchdog has increasingly suggested the market is heading clearly towards the latter as the prevailing direction of travel in recent years. Folding cartons are a form of cardboard pack used for everything from beer bottles and frozen pizzas to tobacco and medicines across consumer sectors. How straightforward the parties’ route to clearance proves could also rest on whether officials see a single cartons market, or one divided by end use and application. Ireland’s paper packaging group Smurfit Kappa and US competitor WestRock agreed last September to combine in an US$11bn transaction they say will forge a “global leader in sustainable packaging.” They have not yet filed with the Commission, but have indicated they expect to close in the second quarter of this year. When unveiling the tie‑up last year, the firms called it “geographically...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 7 December 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission’s readopted infringement decision of 17 December 2020, which imposed a reduced fine amounting to €9.4m (AT.39563). Latest development On 7 December 2022, the General Court delivered its judgment and dismissed the appeal in full. In particular, it found that: (i) CCPL grasped the Commission’s reasoning, and the material presented by CCPL was insufficient to overturn the presumption applied by the Commission that CCPL exercised decisive influence over entities within the CCPL group; and (iii) the Commission did not err in concluding that a fine reduction can only be warranted by the aim of preventing the undertaking’s economic viability from being irreparably endangered and its assets stripped of value, so the applicant’s intention to develop operating companies of the CCPL group cannot, in principle, justify such...

The extended producer responsibility (EPR) regime for packaging and packaging waste The extended producer responsibility (EPR) regime for packaging and packaging waste shifts the entire cost of managing household packaging waste from households to packaging producers, placing on them accountability for their packaging costs throughout its lifecycle. Lower charges apply to sustainable packaging, incentivising designs that use fewer materials and are easier to recycle. Under EPR, Local Authorities (LAs) receive producer-funded payments covering the net costs of collecting, managing, recycling and disposing of this household packaging waste. EPR is governed by the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024, SI 2024/1332 (as amended). These regulations define a range of persons and bodies with specific functions within the regime. These are: producers—these are the principal duty holders compliance schemes the Scheme Administrator (SA) (PackUK) ‘relevant authorities’ which are LAs as household waste collection and disposal authorities responsible for household waste services reprocessors and exporters the ‘appropriate agency’—in England, the Environment...

This Practice Note outlines how in-house lawyers can collaborate with other business functions to secure adherence to regulatory requirements... What regulations need to be complied with and who is responsible for compliance programmes? Every organisation faces sector‑specific rules and broad, cross‑cutting obligations, including: data protection health and safety competition product safety financial crime environmental obligations employment consumer protection advertising and marketing sanctions/export controls reporting/tax In a regulated sector, a visible compliance function is to be expected, yet it is uncommon for a single department to cover every regulatory strand. Where the core business is not regulated, compliance can become fragmented: HR may take charge of health and safety, while another HR lead may oversee ethics (anti‑bribery). An environment team might drive environmental compliance but leave gaps, for example around product packaging and disposal. Data privacy may sit with a dedicated team or be handled by Legal. The legal team will typically take...

As offerings become more technologically advanced and include integrated systems and features, assessing whether tying or bundling might be seen as anti-competitive grows more complex. This checklist is designed to help you weigh key competition law considerations before linking or packaging products. Always seek advice from [ insert, eg the legal team ] where indicated below, and if you have any queries or concerns... 1 Products and market Evaluate whether the items proposed for a bundle or tie are genuinely separate products. Can the products being bundled or tied be treated as distinct offerings? Yes — consult [ insert, eg the legal team ], as bundling may adversely affect suppliers of stand‑alone products and thus harm competition No — [Insert comments] Do other organisations in the market use bundling and tying?...

[ Alleged infringer’s name and address ] [ Date ] Dear [ insert organisation name ], [ UK trade mark registration number [ insert number ] ] We act for [ name and address of client ] (‘our client’). Our client is the proprietor of UK trade mark registration number [ number ] for [ details of trade mark—eg word or logo ], recorded in [ class OR classes ] [ class numbers ] and covering [ among other things ] [ details of specification ] (the ‘Trade Mark’). An extract from the register for the Trade Mark accompanies this letter. Importation into UK It has come to our client’s notice that you are infringing the Trade Mark through the [ importation and offer for sale ] in the UK of goods [ bearing the Trade Mark OR the packaging of which bears the Trade Mark ], which have not been placed on the market in the [ EEA OR UK ] by our...

This Agreement is entered into on [ date ] Parties [ Insert the company name ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] with company number [ insert registered number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (the Provider); and [ Insert the company name ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] with company number [ insert registered number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (the Recipient). Each of the Provider and the Recipient is a party, and together the Provider and the Recipient are the parties. Background (A) The Provider has agreed to provide the Recipient with a sample of the Material for the research purposes authorised under this Agreement...

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR 2008), SI 2008/1277 The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR 2008), SI 2008/1277, outlaws unfair commercial practices that harm consumers’ economic interests. Such practices cover areas like product labelling. For more detail, refer to Practice Note: The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (pre-6 April 2025) [Archived]. Examples of prohibited behaviour include misleading actions, as specified in reg 5 of CPUTR 2008, SI 2008/1277...