ARCO INDUSTRIES LTD v. DURHAM INDUSTRIES INC AND ANOTHER

ARCO INDUSTRIES LTD v. DURHAM INDUSTRIES INC AND ANOTHER

The court found the pistol registration was likely invalid by prior publication and thus no serious question to be tried on the pistol; although the rifle registration raised a serious question of infringement, the balance of convenience favoured refusing an interlocutory injunction because the plaintiff could be adequately compensated by damages while an injunction risked causing defendant irreparable or inadequately compensable loss (including risk of missing the market and potential loss of licences). Therefore the injunction was refused.

Citation
ARCO INDUSTRIES LTD v. DURHAM INDUSTRIES INC AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: ARCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED; 1st Defendant: DURHAM INDUSTRIES INC.; 2nd Defendant: DURHAM INDUSTRIES OF HONG KONG LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Case Number
HCA3430/1977
Procedural Posture
Registered Design Infringement Interlocutory Injunction Application / Interlocutory Injunction Application (high Court)
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction refused
Legal Topics
Design Registration Validity, Prior Publication, Infringement, American Cyanamid Principles, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Design Rights Civil Procedure Injunctions Design Registration Validity Prior Publication Infringement American Cyanamid Principles +2 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ARCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Plaintiff

DURHAM INDUSTRIES INC.

1st Defendant

DURHAM INDUSTRIES OF HONG KONG LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Registered Design Infringement Interlocutory Injunction Application / Interlocutory Injunction Application (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious question to be tried as to validity of registered designs
  2. 2 Whether defendant's products infringe plaintiff's registered designs
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff can be adequately compensated by damages

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the pistol registration was likely invalid by prior publication and thus no serious question to be tried on the pistol; although the rifle registration raised a serious question of infringement, the balance of convenience favoured refusing an interlocutory injunction because the plaintiff could be adequately compensated by damages while an injunction risked causing defendant irreparable or inadequately compensable loss (including risk of missing the market and potential loss of licences). Therefore the injunction was refused.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction refused

Orders

  • Interlocutory injunction refused
  • Defendant's costs in cause