The respondents (together, "Lifestyle") are the owners and exclusive licensees of a number of UK and EU trade marks relating to the "BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB" brand (the "UK/EU Marks"). Corresponding trade marks in the USA are owned by a commercially unrelated entity, which produces goods identical to those for which Lifestyle's trade marks are registered in the UK and EU (the "USA Branded Goods").
Lifestyle claims that the appellants (together, "Amazon") have infringed its rights in the UK/EU Marks by marketing and selling the USA Branded Goods to UK/EU customers via their USA website. In particular, Lifestyle argues that Amazon's advertisement and offer for sale of the US Branded Goods on the USA website "targeted" consumers in the UK/EU, in contravention of relevant UK and EU trade mark laws. Lifestyle claims in addition that, even if the marketing of the USA Branded Goods were not targeted at consumers in the UK/EU, Amazon nonetheless infringed Lifestyle's rights in the UK/EU Marks by selling and delivering the goods through its USA website to consumers in the UK/EU.
The High Court dismissed Lifestyle's claims, concluding that the listings of the USA Branded Goods on Amazon's USA website were not targeted at consumers in the UK/EU. The Court of Appeal overturned this decision and granted an injunction against Amazon. Amazon now appeals to the UK Supreme Court.

RM suffers from a severe mental impairment. On 2 March 2018, RM was charged for a series of violent and sexual offences. RM was found unfit to plead to the charges but was held to have committed the alleged acts.
The Crown Court imposed a Hospital Order and a Restriction Order on RM. RM was detained in a psychiatric ward in hospital.
On 16 January 2019, RM made an application for discharge to the Tribunal. The expert medical evidence before the Tribunal indicated that RM would shortly begin receiving treatment outside of hospital in a community-based setting as part of a period of testing.
Under Article 78 of the Order, a patient may only continue to be detained if they are suffering from a mental disorder of a nature or degree which warrants their detention in hospital for medical treatment.
The Tribunal acknowledged that RM's care plan would involve him moving to live in a community-based setting but considered that he would nonetheless remain a patient receiving treatment in hospital.
RM brought an application for judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal arguing that his continued detention was unlawful in light of the treatment plan advanced in medical evidence which did not envisage further treatment in hospital.
The High Court dismissed the appeal upholding the decision of the Tribunal. However, the Court of Appeal overturned the decisions of the Tribunal and High Court holding that they had erred in law. The Tribunal and Department of Justice now jointly appeal to the Supreme Court.