PANDORA A/S AND ANOTHER v. GLAMULET INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

PANDORA A/S AND ANOTHER v. GLAMULET INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

The judge continued paragraphs 2–4 of the ex parte injunction because the defendant's objections lacked merit, continuation imposed no additional prejudice beyond compliance with paragraph 1, and delivery of infringing items to the plaintiffs for safe custody was justified to prevent further breach or dispute.

Citation
PANDORA A/S AND ANOTHER v. GLAMULET INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Pandora A/S; 2nd Plaintiff: Pandora Jewelry Asia-Pacific Limited; 1st Defendant: Glamulet International Limited; 2nd Defendant: Marksun International Limited; 3rd Defendant: Topnets Group Limited; 5th Defendant: Shen Lian Ping; 6th Defendant: Weng Xiao Hui
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 December 2015
Case Number
HCA2941/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Action – Intellectual Property Infringement and Interlocutory Injunction / Application for Continuation of Ex Parte Injunction (interlocutory/chambers)
Outcome
Interlocutory order continuing parts of ex parte injunction and amending substituted service order
Legal Topics
Ex Parte Injunction, Continuation of Interim Orders, Safe Custody of Seized Items, Substituted Service
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Injunctions Civil Procedure Ex Parte Injunction Continuation of Interim Orders Safe Custody of Seized Items Substituted Service

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pandora A/S

1st Plaintiff

Pandora Jewelry Asia-Pacific Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Glamulet International Limited

1st Defendant

Marksun International Limited

2nd Defendant

Topnets Group Limited

3rd Defendant

Shen Lian Ping

5th Defendant

Weng Xiao Hui

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action – Intellectual Property Infringement and Interlocutory Injunction / Application for Continuation of Ex Parte Injunction (interlocutory/chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs 2–4 of the ex parte IP injunction should be continued pending disposal of the summons for continuation
  2. 2 Whether requiring the 1st defendant to cease sales activities and change the website name is justified
  3. 3 Whether the 1st defendant should deliver alleged infringing items to the plaintiffs for safe custody

Ratio Decidendi

The judge continued paragraphs 2–4 of the ex parte injunction because the defendant's objections lacked merit, continuation imposed no additional prejudice beyond compliance with paragraph 1, and delivery of infringing items to the plaintiffs for safe custody was justified to prevent further breach or dispute.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory order continuing parts of ex parte injunction and amending substituted service order

Orders

  • Continue paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the ex parte injunction until disposal of the summons for continuation.
  • Require the 1st defendant to stop all sales activities and change the name of the website as required by paragraphs 2 and 3 of the ex parte injunction.