SANRIO CO., LTD. v. MIRACLE PRODUCTION CO. (a firm)

SANRIO CO., LTD. v. MIRACLE PRODUCTION CO. (a firm)

The court accepted the applicant's witnesses and contemporaneous records as reliable proof that the 1st Respondent was served and aware of Rogers J's injunction and thus knowingly breached it, establishing contempt beyond reasonable doubt; the evidence was insufficient to prove the 2nd Respondent personally participated in breaches beyond reasonable doubt, so the application against him was dismissed.

Citation
SANRIO CO., LTD. v. MIRACLE PRODUCTION CO. (a firm)
Parties
Plaintiff / Applicant: Sanrio Company, Ltd; Defendant (firm): Miracle Production Company; 1st Respondent (partner of Miracle): Yiu Wai Chong John; 2nd Respondent (partner of Miracle): Chiu Chi Man Andy
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 March 2000
Case Number
HCA8116/1995
Procedural Posture
Copyright Infringement With Ancillary Contempt Proceedings / Hearing on Contempt Liability; Judge Found Liability Against 1st Respondent and Dismissed Application Against 2nd Respondent; Penalty/relief to Be Heard
Outcome
1st Respondent found in contempt of court for breaching the injunction; 2nd Respondent not found guilty of contempt and application against him dismissed; penalty to be determined at further hearing.
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Injunction Breach, Service of Court Orders, Standard of Proof for Contempt, Witness Credibility
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Contempt of Court Civil Procedure Evidence Copyright Infringement Injunction Breach Service of Court Orders Standard of Proof for Contempt +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sanrio Company, Ltd

Plaintiff / Applicant

Miracle Production Company

Defendant (firm)

Yiu Wai Chong John

1st Respondent (partner of Miracle)

Chiu Chi Man Andy

2nd Respondent (partner of Miracle)

Procedural Posture

Copyright Infringement With Ancillary Contempt Proceedings / Hearing on Contempt Liability; Judge Found Liability Against 1st Respondent and Dismissed Application Against 2nd Respondent; Penalty/relief to Be Heard

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Respondent was served with and aware of the injunction and knowingly breached it
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Respondent was served with and/or personally participated in breaches of the injunction
  3. 3 Whether the applicant proved contempt beyond reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted the applicant's witnesses and contemporaneous records as reliable proof that the 1st Respondent was served and aware of Rogers J's injunction and thus knowingly breached it, establishing contempt beyond reasonable doubt; the evidence was insufficient to prove the 2nd Respondent personally participated in breaches beyond reasonable doubt, so the application against him was dismissed.

Court Disposition

1st Respondent found in contempt of court for breaching the injunction; 2nd Respondent not found guilty of contempt and application against him dismissed; penalty to be determined at further hearing.

Orders

  • Application against 2nd Respondent dismissed.
  • 1st Respondent found to be in contempt; hearing to be convened on appropriate penalty including consideration of leave to issue writs of sequestration.