Consultation outcome

Government response to the consultation on the UK’s future exhaustion of intellectual property rights regime

Updated 15 May 2025

Presented to Parliament by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for AI and Digital Government by Command of His Majesty

May 2025

CP 1313

© Crown copyright 2025

ISBN: 978-1-5286-5699-3

E03355573

Ministerial foreword

A well-designed, balanced intellectual property (IP) system offers confidence for businesses, investors, and consumers to contribute to growing our economy. It is a key reason why the United Kingdom is one of the most innovative countries in the world. Incentivising innovation and creativity are fundamental for unlocking economic growth, with the IP framework playing an important role in this mission.

The government is keen to provide certainty on an essential part of our IP system, the UK’s exhaustion of IP rights regime. A country’s exhaustion regime plays a crucial part in everyday commerce, setting the rules that are in place for the parallel importation of goods. It needs to strike a fair balance between the interests of businesses and consumers, as well as consider the effect on our wider society.

Many businesses have been watching this matter closely, and the government understood the need for a decision on the UK’s future parallel importation laws. But we have acted with the care required for such an important, long-term decision on this complex issue. And we have now reached a decision to provide clarity on this matter.

I am therefore pleased to announce that this government has chosen to maintain the unique UK+ exhaustion regime. It is a stable, well-understood regime that meets our objective to provide balance by having parallel importation laws which promote the interests of the British people and our IP-rich businesses.

The UK+ regime reflects the many different parts of the UK’s modern, innovative economy. It ensures that our world-leading inventors and creators can invest their time and energy in developing new products and technologies knowing that our parallel importation laws will help to support them make a living from their IP assets. These laws will also facilitate competition in the marketplace. And they will enable the British public to have fair access to IP-protected goods.

I am grateful to those who took the time to contribute to this consultation, and for their constructive engagement on this complex decision. We have listened to the views of businesses of all sizes and from across a range of economic sectors. While there were strongly held views on this decision, the UK+ regime had support across respondents to the public consultation.

I am pleased to provide the clarity that businesses have been calling out for, helping to provide confidence to businesses, investors and consumers in our balanced IP framework. It is a decision that this government has taken to foster an environment that supports innovation and the further unlocking of economic growth.

Feryal Clark MP

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for AI and Digital Government

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

Executive Summary

1. The UK’s intellectual property framework is consistently ranked amongst the very best in the world (for example, it is ranked second on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s international IP index). A key reason for this success is how the framework balances the needs of protecting creators and inventors while also promoting competition, consumer choice and fair market pricing.

2. A balanced, well-designed framework allows innovators to use their energies to create new intellectual works, knowing that their IP rights will be protected. In turn, consumers have fair access to these new creative works, technologies, and products. This outcome is crucial for creating an environment that unlocks economic growth across the UK.

3. A core mechanism for achieving balance in our IP framework is called the “exhaustion of IP rights”. This affects how registered and unregistered IP rights, such as patents, trade marks, designs or copyright, can be used to control the distribution of genuine physical goods.

4. An integral function of IP rights is that they allow their owners to control the first sale of their goods so that they can earn a financial benefit for their efforts. However, there is a limitation: IP rights cannot continue controlling the distribution of the good after it has been lawfully placed on the market. This is because putting a good on the market “exhausts” the IP rights holder’s ability to control the distribution of the good in the UK. The result is that IP rights holders cannot prevent a secondary market for their goods.

5. Following the UK’s exit from the European Union’s (EU) single market, we no longer had to follow the EU’s exhaustion rules. It was necessary to review the complex choice of how the UK’s exhaustion of IP rights mechanism should apply to goods that are first sold in foreign markets. Specifically, whether those previous arrangements were in the best interests of the UK’s economy and society.

6. The UK had to decide the territorial application of its exhaustion mechanism, which is commonly referred to as an “exhaustion regime”. This sets out the geographical area in which the placing of a good on the market will, in most circumstances, exhaust the relevant IP rights in that good in the UK.

7. This is an important decision that will determine the UK’s laws on the parallel importation (PI) of goods into the UK. This is the movement of genuine physical goods that are first sold outside of the UK, bought by secondary market actors, and imported into the UK. PI plays a role in most sectors of the UK’s economy, but these laws do not apply to purely digital content (e.g., a download of a song or game). The government has produced an explainer video about the exhaustion of IP rights and parallel trade on YouTube.

8. A public consultation was launched by the previous government in 2021 which sought evidence and views from stakeholders on four options for the UK’s future exhaustion regime. This included what regime should be chosen and, if there were to be a change, how any new regime should be implemented. We are grateful for the constructive engagement of businesses, organisations, and private individuals during the consultation process. This document sets out the conclusions of that consultation.

9. The government sought views and evidence on the impact of four policy options for the UK’s future exhaustion regime:

Option 1: Maintain the “UK+ regime”, a bespoke regional exhaustion regime, which has been in place since January 2021. In general terms, this regime ensures that relevant IP rights in goods are exhausted in the UK when a good is placed on the market in either the UK or the European Economic Area.

Option 2: Move to a national exhaustion regime. In general terms, this regime would ensure that relevant IP rights in goods are exhausted in the UK only when they are put on our domestic market. This option is not considered to be reconcilable with the then Northern Ireland Protocol to the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement (“Northern Ireland Protocol”), which has now been amended by the Windsor Framework. This international agreement forms a unique arrangement for Northern Ireland in that it has dual access to both the EU Single Market and the UK internal market. The obligation in both of these Agreements that a national regime was found not to be reconcilable with was that parallel goods may move from the Republic of Ireland and other EU member states into Northern Ireland without restriction. Therefore, this option was included in the consultation for completeness, and to gather evidence on its economic impact. In practice, this option would prevent the parallel importation of many goods into the UK.

Option 3: Move to an international exhaustion regime. In general terms, this regime would ensure that relevant IP rights in goods are exhausted in the UK when a good is placed on the market in any country. In practice, this would allow businesses to parallel import goods from anywhere in the world without permission from the IP rights holder.

Option 4: Move to a mixed exhaustion regime. In general terms, this regime would customise the UK’s exhaustion rules for a specific good(s), sector(s), or IP right(s). Other goods, sectors, or IP rights would face different rules. The consultation document did not propose a particular configuration of this regime in order to allow respondents to provide their own views.

10. The consultation responses provided valuable insights into how businesses from many economic sectors viewed this issue. Stakeholders also continued to provide their views on this matter since the consultation closed. We are grateful for the constructive engagement throughout the policy decision process.

11. After careful consideration, the government has decided to maintain the UK+ regime. A majority of consultation respondents reported that this regime is working well. This aligns with the views of stakeholders that have engaged the government on the policy choice since the consultation period closed. In turn, the consultation did not elicit robust quantitative evidence to support a change to any of the alternative options.

12. The government’s assessment is that choosing the UK+ regime will provide confidence to our dynamic businesses, creators, and innovators because this exhaustion regime is a well-understood system that will protect their IP assets. Simultaneously, consumers can be confident that there is competition within the market, which creates sufficient choice, and they have fair access to IP-protected goods.

Introduction

13. As of 1 January 2021, the EU’s exhaustion regime no longer applied to the UK (guidance for stakeholders was published by the UK Government and the EU). This allowed for a review as to what exhaustion regime was appropriate for the UK’s modern, innovative economy.

14. The choice of the UK’s future exhaustion regime is an important decision. It underpins the rules that govern the PI of goods into the UK which is ingrained in many sectors of the economy. Owing to the importance and complexity of this issue, the government sought views and evidence on a range of options.

15. As a first step, the government was aware of the limitations in using existing evidence to assess the extent of PI in the UK, as well as the impact of changing our exhaustion regime. While other jurisdictions have previously altered elements of their exhaustion regimes, these case studies are difficult to apply to this policy decision. None of these countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, left a trade bloc’s exhaustion regime and changed their exhaustion rules for all IP rights simultaneously. Even if an international precedent existed, the data would be difficult to apply to the UK as each nation’s IP framework, trading practices, and consumer purchasing habits are unique. As such, there is little evidence from other countries that could be applied to model the effect of the UK changing its exhaustion regime.

16. The government was also aware of evidence gaps and therefore sought quantitative and qualitative data from stakeholders on several topics. We consulted stakeholders with the aim to gather evidence of the impacts of any potential change in our exhaustion regime. The government was not seeking to assess how or whether the principle of exhaustion applied to different types of products, including purely digital content. Examples of purely digital content are the download of a song or game. As such, the application of the exhaustion mechanism to digital products was considered outside of the scope of the consultation.

17. In June 2021, the government launched the 12-week public consultation on the UK’s future exhaustion regime, publishing a consultation document and associated consultation-stage impact assessment. The government invited stakeholders to send their responses and held ministerial roundtables and meetings with interested parties.

18. The topics covered in the consultation document were:  

• PI into the UK  

• price differentials for goods in different sectors  

• the UK’s current exhaustion regime  

• an assessment of the options for our future exhaustion regime  

• implementation considerations of changing exhaustion regime  

• legal questions that focused on the government’s assessment of relevant international commitments

19. By providing answers on these topics, stakeholders informed the government of their views on what exhaustion regime should be chosen, and if there were to be a change, how any new regime should be implemented.

20. The consultation received 150 responses from businesses of various sizes, organisations, and private individuals, from numerous sectors. A summary of the respondents can be found at paragraph 45. We are grateful to stakeholders for taking the time to respond to the consultation.

21. The government’s assessment of each option for the UK’s future exhaustion regime is provided in paragraphs 32-34. Our assessment found that the UK+ regime was the option that could best provide an effective balance to the different interests of the marketplace. In contrast, the consultation revealed there was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the theoretical benefits of the alternative options would necessarily emerge if there was a change in our exhaustion regime.

Summary of consultation evidence and government response

22. This chapter provides a summary of the responses to the consultation, followed by the government response. The 18 consultation questions have been grouped together into five categories. A more detailed summary of the responses to the consultation can be viewed on the public consultation webpage.

Parallel trade and prices (Questions 1 to 5)

Question 1:

Is there parallel trade in your sector?

Question 1a:

If so, how do parallel imports from the EEA impact on your organisation in terms of (a) choice, (b) availability of supply and (c) competition in your marketplace?

Question 2:

If you are able to, please provide the current volume or value of total imports to your organisation in the UK. If possible, please estimate the percentage of the total imports accounted for by parallel imports?

Question 3:

In your business, how do you exert control over supply chains?

Question 4:

For your business or organisation, how do right holders become aware and seek to stop their products being parallel imported from outside the EEA without permission?

Question 5:

Are there international price differentials for goods in your sector? If yes, what are the factors that influence differences in prices between countries?

23. Overall, the government received little quantitative data. Most respondents acknowledged the importance of parallel trade or international price differentials for goods in their sector, but they provided little evidence on these areas. They either lacked the information or were unwilling to share this with the government due to the commercially sensitive nature of the data.

Response:

24. The lack of quantitative data on parallel trade corroborated the conclusions of an independent feasibility study which the IPO commissioned in 2019. This study investigated whether it was possible to measure the scale and the extent of parallel trade in the UK. It found that parallel trade was difficult to measure in most sectors as businesses collected little data on this matter. The exception is specific sectors where there are regulatory obligations to track the origins of goods (e.g., certain pharmaceutical products due to public health measures).

25. We believe that further consultation is unlikely to obtain robust quantitative data on the scale and extent of parallel trade in the near future.

The UK’s current exhaustion regime (Questions 6 to 8)

Question 6:

Are you or your business/organisation aware of the change to the UK’s exhaustion regime that came into effect on 1 January 2021 following the end of the transition period?

Question 7:

What are the costs and benefits of the current regime to your organisation? For example, in terms of choice and availability of suppliers, prices paid and regulatory standards.

Question 8:

If possible, please provide examples if your business: a) has prohibited or has considered prohibiting parallel exports or b) has been prevented from parallel exporting from the UK to the EEA since 1 January 2021.

26. Following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the UK applied a bespoke regional exhaustion regime (the UK+ regime). This gave stability for businesses while a decision on the future regime was being made. The UK+ regime was one of the options in the consultation.

27. In general, the UK+ regime ensures that goods placed on the market in the EEA can be parallel imported into the UK without the rights holder’s permission in most circumstances. Most respondents to the consultation noted that the UK+ exhaustion regime was working well, as it allowed them to continue utilising their existing business models.

Response:

28. The UK+ regime is a well-understood exhaustion regime that offers stability for Britain’s IP-rich businesses to continue operating their business practices. This is demonstrated by the responses to the consultation, which also showed significant support for the UK+ regime.

29. Stakeholders have engaged the government since the consultation period closed. It has been consistently emphasised that the UK+ regime is working well.

Assessment of the options for the UK’s future exhaustion regime (Questions 9 to 13)

Question 9:

If the government was able to change from the current unilateral regional regime (UK+ regime), would your business or organisation prefer a model which either allowed parallel imports from anywhere in the world (without the rights holder’s permission) or prohibited parallel imports into the UK (unless the rights holder’s permission is obtained)? Please outline the regime your business or organisation would prefer and explain the benefits, costs of change and risks of that change.

Question 10:

Of the 4 options that the government is assessing, which exhaustion regime would you be most opposed to for your business or organisation? Please explain the reasons and set out the costs to your business or organisation and risks of that change.

Question 11:

Is there clear and verifiable evidence in favour of different treatment for specific sectors, goods, or IP rights to the UK economy?

Question 12:

What new activities would your business have to undertake if the government changed the current exhaustion regime? What would be the costs and benefits of such activities?

Question 13:

Please outline any other issues that the government should consider when deciding on what exhaustion regime to implement, including economic, trade, consumer, or societal impacts.

30. Approximately three quarters of respondents to the consultation expressed a preference for one of the options for the UK’s future exhaustion regime. The results were that: 

• the majority favoured the UK+ exhaustion regime 

• over a third favoured a national exhaustion regime 

• a small number favoured an international exhaustion regime 

• few favoured a mixed exhaustion regime

31. While a majority of respondents favoured the UK+ regime, a few supporters qualified their support for a variety of reasons. The most common reason was that these respondents believed that it was a better short-term solution. Others highlighted that a national exhaustion regime was their preferred option, but they understood it was not considered reconcilable with the Northern Ireland Protocol (now amended by the Windsor Framework).

Response:

32. A summary of the government’s assessment of each option in the consultation is provided below:

The UK+ Regime:

This regime is working well on the basis that it provides an effective balance between the various interests of the country, including the promotion of competition and fair access to IP-protected goods. This assessment is supported by most consultation respondents. Maintaining the UK+ regime will avoid transition costs arising from amending business models. The government considers that businesses, consumers, and investors will be assured that there will be balanced, well-designed PI laws under the UK+ regime.

A national exhaustion regime:

The government continues to maintain that this regime is not reconcilable with the UK’s international commitments. A significant domestic risk of a national regime is its potential negative impact on the security and diversity of supply of medicines into the UK. The government considers this risk to outweigh the theoretical benefits of this option. For example, this regime could potentially encourage the development of products that are more tailored to UK consumers’ preferences.

An international exhaustion regime:

Theoretically, this regime may lead to greater competition amongst businesses, increased choice, and lower prices for consumers. However, there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this regime would lower prices for consumers. This is because any savings made from the PI of goods into the UK from countries outside of the EEA may not be passed to UK consumers. For example, it may be absorbed by intermediaries or offset by transportation costs.  In turn, there could be a potential reduction of goods that are tailored specifically for the UK market. Although this regime may create new opportunities for businesses in the future, this option received little support from respondents to the consultation. In particular, stakeholders in the creative industries raised concerns about how it may damage their sector. Without sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this regime will provide balance for our IP framework or economic benefits, the government is not advocating a move to an international regime.

A mixed exhaustion regime:

This regime could create the largest regulatory burden of all the potential options. Establishing specific rules for a type of good, sector, or IP right has the potential to create substantial operational and administrative challenges for PI, as a good or sector can contain multiple IP rights. This option received little support from respondents to the consultation. Further consideration and consultation would likely be required on how such a regime would be designed. We believe that this would create unnecessary regulatory uncertainty.

33. The consultation revealed support for maintaining the UK+ regime as the UK’s permanent exhaustion regime. In contrast, it did not elicit robust quantitative evidence to support changing to an alternative option.

34. The government has assessed the evidence and is satisfied that the UK+ regime is the best option for balancing our IP framework and the option that is the most appropriate for the UK’s economy and society. This is crucial for fostering an environment that supports innovation and the further unlocking of economic growth.

Implementation of any changes to our exhaustion regime (Questions 14 to 15)

Question 14:

If the government were to change its exhaustion regime, what factors would affect the amount of time your business or organisation would need to implement a change? This may include, but is not limited to, changes to supply chains, contracts, product development, manufacturing processes or investment decisions. Please provide information to support your comments.

Question 15:

If the government were to change its exhaustion regime, what length of time would your business or organisation need to implement the change (for example, 1 year or 3 years)? Please provide information to support your answer.

35. Many respondents to the consultation were clear that any changes to the UK’s exhaustion regime would require a period to embed these changes. However, the suggested length for the implementation period varied among respondents due to individual or sector-specific factors.

Response:

36. The government understands many businesses would welcome an implementation period should the UK have decided to move to a different exhaustion regime.

37. As the government has decided to maintain the UK+ regime, no implementation period is required. Businesses will not need to amend their contractual and licensing practices or operations concerning the PI of goods into the UK.

38. There has been little change to the UK+ regime since the consultation was launched. The most substantive amendment was a statutory instrument that ensured the continued operation of the UK+ exhaustion regime from the end of 2023. These Regulations did not make any substantive changes to this policy area. This means that businesses, investors, and IP rights holders can continue to operate on the basis of the UK’s current PI rules.

Legal (Questions 16 to 17)

Question 16:

Do you have any views on the government’s assessment of UK legislation and international treaties that are relevant to the UK’s choice and implementation of an exhaustion regime?

Question 17:

Do you have any views on the government’s assessment that the Northern Ireland Protocol will mean that the regime ultimately selected by the UK government will need to allow parallel imports into Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland and other EEA countries?

39. At the outset of the consultation in 2021, the government was clear that a national exhaustion regime was not reconcilable with the UK’s commitments under the Northern Ireland Protocol (now amended by the Windsor Framework).

40. The other options were considered compatible; however, there was a specific limitation on the design of a mixed exhaustion regime. This regime could not apply national exhaustion rules for a specific good, sector, or IP right.

41. A large proportion of the respondents to the consultation accepted the government’s assessment. However, some put forward arguments for why the introduction of a national exhaustion regime may be feasible without breaching the UK’s international commitments.

Response:

42. The government appreciated the extensive analysis and engagement with respect to a national regime’s compatibility with the UK’s international commitments. The government’s assessment remains that a national regime is not reconcilable with the Northern Ireland Protocol.

43. Moreover, the government’s assessment is that a national exhaustion regime continues to be irreconcilable with the obligations set out under the Windsor Framework.

44. No views were expressed in the consultation on the impact of the UK’s choice of exhaustion regime on either the Crown Dependencies or British Overseas Territories. The government’s assessment is that maintaining the UK+ regime will not have any implications for these jurisdictions. This is because there will be no change from the current rules on parallel trade between the UK and these jurisdictions.

Annex A: Consultation respondents

Summary of Respondents

45. In total, the government received 150 responses to the consultation:

Respondent Type

Respondent Type	Number	Percentage
Business (71) or Organisation (49)	120	80%
Individuals	17	11%
Respondent type not stated	13	9%

Size of Business

Businesses	Number	Percentage
SMEs with fewer than 250 employees	37	52%
Businesses with more than 250 employees	29	41%
Size of business not stated	5	7%

Respondents by Sector 

Sector	Responses
Agriculture, forestry & fishing	6
Automotive or Aerospace	1
Business administration	0
Civil society	1
Construction	1
Creative industries	54
Distribution	5
Education / Academia	5
Finance	0
Food and drink	9
Health (human or animal)	39
Information technology	6
Production/ Manufacturing	7
Public administration & defence	0
Retail	8
Transport & Storage	1
Wholesale	6
Other	23
No Sector Identified	10

List of respondents - businesses and organisations

46. List of businesses and organisations that responded to the consultation:

Abacus Medicine A/S 

ACT / The App Association 

Aelurus Publishing Agrovista UK limited 

AIPPI UK (the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property) 

Alliance for Gray Market and Counterfeit Abatement 

Alliance for Intellectual Property 

Anti Copying in Design (ACID)

Anti-Counterfeiting Group and British Brands Group 

Arts Council England 

Association of Authors’ Agents 

Association of Learned & Professional Society Publishers 

Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) 

Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society

B&S Group Bayer Plc 

BBC Studios Distribution Limited / BBC 

Beachcourse Limited 

Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 

Bonnier Books UK 

Booksellers Association BPI (British Recorded Music Industry)

Limited Bristows LLP obo a client (‘the Respondent’) 

British Association of European Pharmaceutical Distributors (BAEPD) 

British Copyright Council 

British Fashion Council 

British Film Institute 

British Footwear Association 

British Generic Manufacturers Association 

British Retail Consortium 

British Screen Forum 

British Specialist Nutrition Association Limited 

British Toy and Hobby Association

Charted Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys 

Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys 

Chartered Trading Standards Institute 

Chemilines Group 

Clayton Plant Protection (UK) Ltd 

Connect Pharma 

Creative Distribution Limited 

Creators’ Rights Alliance 

Cross Healthcare Ltd 

CST Pharma Limited 

Curtis Brown Group

DACS 

Danone 

Diageo Plc 

Disturbance Press 

Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Limited

East Riding Horticulture Ltd 

Eisai Europe Limited 

Elsevier Ltd 

Ericsson Limited

Faber and Faber Ltd

Federation of Small Business

FICPI-UK

GlaxoSmithKlein

Gowling WLG (UK) LLP

Granta Publications

Hachette UK Ltd

Healthcare Distribution Association (HDA UK)

Highways England Company Limited

The Independent Alliance

Independent Publishers Guild

Intellectual Property Awareness Network

Intellectual Property Bar Association

Intellectual Property Lawyers’ Association

International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM)

International Trademark Association

IP Federation

IP working group of the Creative Industries Council

Irish Whiskey Association

Irish Whiskey Association

Law Society of England and Wales

Law Society of Scotland

Lawyers for Britain

Lexon (UK) Ltd

MARQUES

Masstock Arable Ltd

McKesson UK

Mediwin PPIP Ltd

Merck Sharp & Dohme (UK) Limited

Michael O’Mara Books Ltd

Motion Picture Association

Music Publishers Association

National Pharmacy Association

National Union Journalists

Necessity Supplies Limited

NIP Pharma Limited

Norgine Pharmaceuticals Limited

Nosy Crow Ltd

Novartis AG

Nupharm Ltd

Oracle Corporation

P & AJ Cattee (Wholesale) Ltd

Pan Agriculture Limited

PCT Healthcare Ltd

Penguin Random House UK

Pfizer Limited

Plexian International Limited

Pricecheck Toiletries Limited

ProCam UK Limited

Procurri Europe Limited

Professional Publishers Association

Profile Books Ltd

Publishers Association

Publishers’ Licensing Services Limited

Publishing Scotland

Roche

SAGE Publications Ltd

Save Our Books

Scholastic Limited

Scotch Whisky Association

Scribe Publications

Shakespeare Pharma Ltd

Sigma Pharmaceuticals Plc

Society of Authors

Specialist Pharmacy Service of NHS England

Strathclyde Pharmaceuticals Limited

Taylor Vinters LLP

techUK

Teleta Pharma Ltd

Teva UK Limited

Third World Network

UK BioIndustry Association

UK Coalition for Cultural Diversity

UK Fashion & Textile Association

UK Music

Walkboost Ltd

Walpole

WGGB (Writers Union)

William Grant & Sons Ltd

47. In addition, 17 individuals responded to the consultation.

48. The government is grateful for the constructive engagement of the businesses, organisations, and private individuals during the consultation process.

Annex B: Consultation documents and further information

49. Links to relevant documents and videos relating to the policy decision on the UK’s future exhaustion of IP rights regime are set out below.

Public Consultation

Consultation: UK’s future exhaustion of intellectual property rights regime

Consultation document on the UK’s future regime for exhaustion of intellectual property rights

Response form for the UK’s future exhaustion of intellectual property rights regime consultation

Consultation stage impact assessment on the UKs future exhaustion of intellectual property rights regime

Video explainer: exhaustion of intellectual property rights and parallel trade

Consultation Outcome

De minimis impact assessment: maintaining the UK’s regional exhaustion of intellectual property rights regime

Summary of the responses to the consultation

The Intellectual Property (Exhaustion of Rights) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Statutory instrument

Explanatory memorandum