CHOON’S DESIGN INC v. HONGKONG HAOGUAN PLASTIC HARDWARE CO LTD AND OTHERS

CHOON’S DESIGN INC v. HONGKONG HAOGUAN PLASTIC HARDWARE CO LTD AND OTHERS

Default judgment was entered because the 1st and 3rd defendants failed to file defences and the 2nd defendant's draft defence was unbelievable and did not disclose an arguable defence on the merits, so the 2nd defendant's application for an extension of time was dismissed.

Citation
CHOON’S DESIGN INC v. HONGKONG HAOGUAN PLASTIC HARDWARE CO LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: CHOON’S DESIGN INC; 1st Defendant: HONGKONG HAOGUAN PLASTIC HARDWARE CO LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: MEASYTECH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: LIU XIAO ZHENG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 April 2015
Case Number
HCA2214/2014
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Action: Copyright Infringement and Passing Off / Hearing on Summonses for Default Judgment and Extension of Time (interlocutory)
Outcome
Judgment in default entered against 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants; 2nd defendant's extension application dismissed; prohibitive injunction made permanent; damages to be assessed; costs to plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Extension of Time, Secondary Infringement, Injunction, Damages
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Copyright Trademark Passing Off Civil Procedure Default Judgment Extension of Time Secondary Infringement +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHOON’S DESIGN INC

Plaintiff

HONGKONG HAOGUAN PLASTIC HARDWARE CO LIMITED

1st Defendant

MEASYTECH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

2nd Defendant

LIU XIAO ZHENG

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Action: Copyright Infringement and Passing Off / Hearing on Summonses for Default Judgment and Extension of Time (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether default judgment should be entered against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd defendant should be granted an extension of time to file a defence
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd defendant's draft defence discloses an arguable/believable defence on the merits

Ratio Decidendi

Default judgment was entered because the 1st and 3rd defendants failed to file defences and the 2nd defendant's draft defence was unbelievable and did not disclose an arguable defence on the merits, so the 2nd defendant's application for an extension of time was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment in default entered against 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants; 2nd defendant's extension application dismissed; prohibitive injunction made permanent; damages to be assessed; costs to plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment in terms of the reliefs claimed in the Statement of Claim against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants.
  • The Prohibitive Injunction Order of DHCJ Mayo dated 7 November 2014 is made permanent against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants.