LUSH LTD AND ANOTHER v. RED CHANNEL INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

LUSH LTD AND ANOTHER v. RED CHANNEL INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

There is a serious question to be tried that the defendants breached the Licence by operating and selling competing products under the Nest business in the Territory; no concluded ad hoc or collateral agreement extended the Licence to March 2013 and the plaintiffs did not waive or are estopped from enforcing termination; plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm to their trade mark rights and the balance of convenience favours granting interlocutory injunctions restraining release of disputed shipments and prohibiting defendants' use of the Lush name and trademarks pending trial.

Citation
LUSH LTD AND ANOTHER v. RED CHANNEL INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: LUSH LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: COSMETIC WARRIORS LIMITED; 1st Defendant: RED CHANNEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: OCEAN FAITH INTERNATIONAL TRADING LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: TIFFANY LAU (also known as LAU MEI SUN); 4th Defendant: LUSH HONG KONG LIMITED; 5th Defendant: BODY CONCEPTS LIMITED; 6th Defendant: FIRST REGENT TRADING LIMITED; 7th Defendant: LEGEND GLORY CORPORATION LIMITED; 8th Defendant: THE FRESH HANDMADE LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 December 2012
Case Number
HCA2242/2012
Procedural Posture
Trademark and Licence Dispute (breach of Licence) Interlocutory Injunction Application / Interlocutory Hearing and Decision on Application for Injunctions
Outcome
Injunctions granted in favour of the plaintiffs in the terms sought; order nisi for costs in the cause with certificate for counsel
Legal Topics
Licence Termination, Breach of Licence, Interim Injunction, Waiver and Estoppel, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Contract Law Equity Injunctions Licence Termination Breach of Licence Interim Injunction Waiver and Estoppel Balance of Convenience

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LUSH LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

COSMETIC WARRIORS LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

RED CHANNEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

1st Defendant

OCEAN FAITH INTERNATIONAL TRADING LIMITED

2nd Defendant

TIFFANY LAU (also known as LAU MEI SUN)

3rd Defendant

LUSH HONG KONG LIMITED

4th Defendant

BODY CONCEPTS LIMITED

5th Defendant

FIRST REGENT TRADING LIMITED

6th Defendant

LEGEND GLORY CORPORATION LIMITED

7th Defendant

THE FRESH HANDMADE LIMITED

8th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Trademark and Licence Dispute (breach of Licence) Interlocutory Injunction Application / Interlocutory Hearing and Decision on Application for Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached the Licence by operating a competing business (Nest Beauty) during the Licence term
  2. 2 Whether an ad hoc or collateral agreement extended the Licence or gave the defendants a reasonable notice period
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs waived their rights or are estopped from enforcing termination

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious question to be tried that the defendants breached the Licence by operating and selling competing products under the Nest business in the Territory; no concluded ad hoc or collateral agreement extended the Licence to March 2013 and the plaintiffs did not waive or are estopped from enforcing termination; plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm to their trade mark rights and the balance of convenience favours granting interlocutory injunctions restraining release of disputed shipments and prohibiting defendants' use of the Lush name and trademarks pending trial.

Court Disposition

Injunctions granted in favour of the plaintiffs in the terms sought; order nisi for costs in the cause with certificate for counsel

Orders

  • Grant injunctions in terms of paragraphs 1 to 6 of the Summons issued on 4 December 2012
  • Restrict 1st to 3rd defendants from taking delivery of, disposing of or otherwise dealing with Products shipped by the plaintiffs to Hong Kong but not yet released to the defendants