HONG MAN CHING v. HONGDOU GROUP CORPORATION

HONG MAN CHING v. HONGDOU GROUP CORPORATION

The court found that, despite the absence of cross-examination, the coincidences in design (font, inclination, near perfect superposition except one letter) combined with the appellant's implausible account made the inference of copying irresistible; therefore the appellant acted dishonestly in seeking registration and the Registrar was correct to refuse registration.

Citation
HONG MAN CHING v. HONGDOU GROUP CORPORATION
Parties
Applicant/appellant: HONG MAN CHING; Opponent/respondent: HONGDOU GROUP CORPORATION
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 March 2006
Case Number
HCMP2148/2005
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Appeal / Appeal From Registrar Decision; Final Decision in Chambers
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Registration, Bad Faith/dishonest Adoption of Mark, Well Known Mark Status, Evidence and Cross Examination, Likelihood of Confusion, Remedies and Costs
Source Language
EN
Trade Mark Law Intellectual Property Law Trade Mark Registration Bad Faith/dishonest Adoption of Mark Well Known Mark Status Evidence and Cross Examination Likelihood of Confusion Remedies and Costs

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HONG MAN CHING

Applicant/appellant

HONGDOU GROUP CORPORATION

Opponent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Trade Mark Appeal / Appeal From Registrar Decision; Final Decision in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant copied the respondent's trade mark
  2. 2 Whether registration was applied for in bad faith/dishonestly
  3. 3 Whether an inference of dishonesty can be drawn on affidavit evidence without cross-examination

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, despite the absence of cross-examination, the coincidences in design (font, inclination, near perfect superposition except one letter) combined with the appellant's implausible account made the inference of copying irresistible; therefore the appellant acted dishonestly in seeking registration and the Registrar was correct to refuse registration.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Registrar's decision dated 8 July 2005 refusing registration affirmed
  • Appeal dismissed with costs