SIL meaning

Sarabande v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 93 (TC) SB, a registered charity, holds a long lease of a central London property (the Building). Suture Inc Ltd (SIL), SB’s wholly owned subsidiary, is not VAT-registered. In 2018, SB opted for voluntary VAT registration and sought to recover £341,487.31 of VAT incurred on purchasing and refurbishing the Building. The project transformed what had been a warehouse-style area into art studios, gallery space and meeting rooms. SB’s objective was to create a venue to nurture an artists’ community, and it devised a structured support scheme for artists called the ‘Accelerator Programme’. Through this programme, artists were offered curated, subsidised space, comprising studio and exhibition areas together with a bundle of benefits, including use of professional equipment, guidance from sector specialists and hands-on assistance from as well as advice from industry experts and practical support offered by SB within the Building to participants in the scheme on a structured basis throughout...

In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Copyright & associated rights Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off Court of Appeal confirms ‘SHORTSTV’ trade mark is invalid (Shorts International Ltd v Google LLC) The Court of Appeal, in Shorts International Ltd v Google LLC [2026] EWCA Civ 668, upheld the earlier ruling and dismissed Shorts International Ltd’s (SIL’s) appeal, confirming that Google’s use of ‘Shorts’ did not infringe SIL’s registered trade marks and that one of its registrations was invalid. SIL, a producer and distributor of short films aired on its ‘ShortsTV’ channel, contended that Google’s deployment of ‘Shorts’ for its YouTube Shorts service infringed its five registered trade marks under section 10(2) and 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994) and amounted to passing off. The judge determined that four of SIL’s marks remained valid owing to modest figurative elements that imparted...

CNG Applicant and G 1st Respondent G 2nd Respondent SIL 3rd Respondent [2025] HKCFI 3598 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling matters because it confirms the demanding bar for disqualifying arbitrators in Hong Kong and places that approach within a settled body of precedent. To begin, the court restated that the touchstone for apparent bias remains the ‘real possibility’ standard from Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357, as adopted locally in Jung Science Information Technology Co Ltd v ZTE Corporation [2008] 4 HKLRD 776. Justice Chan underlined that firm case management, interruptions, or terse comments do not suffice. That position aligns with Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] 1 WLR 2416 and Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488, which both make clear that resolve or impatience is not the same as bias. Practically, advocates should prepare clients for the reality that removing a tribunal member calls for far more than displeasure with demeanour or tone. In addition, the...