MONTRES ROLEX S.A. AND ANOTHER v. BROADWAY WATCH, JEWELLERY & GOLDSMITH CO. LTD AND ANOTHER

MONTRES ROLEX S.A. AND ANOTHER v. BROADWAY WATCH, JEWELLERY & GOLDSMITH CO. LTD AND ANOTHER

The court refused to discharge the Anton Piller order and continued the interlocutory injunction because there was sufficient evidence that the employee carried out material acts in the employer's premises, the nature and price of the counterfeit watches made individual-only culpability less likely, and there was a clearly arguable case of vicarious liability such that leaving the premises available would risk continuation of the illicit trade.

Citation
MONTRES ROLEX S.A. AND ANOTHER v. BROADWAY WATCH, JEWELLERY & GOLDSMITH CO. LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Montres Rolex S.A.; 2nd Plaintiff: Rolex (Hong Kong) Limited; 1st Defendant: Broadway Watch, Jewellery & Goldsmith Company Limited; 2nd Defendant: Chan Siu Chuen
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 December 1995
Case Number
HCA10782/1995
Procedural Posture
Application to Continue Ex Parte Anton Piller Order and Interlocutory Injunction (counterfeit Goods) / Hearing in Chambers on Application to Discharge/continue Injunctions (1 December 1995)
Outcome
Anton Piller order not discharged; interlocutory injunction continued against defendants including restraint on use of 1st Defendant's premises; further orders in terms of the remainder of the summons to be made; costs to be heard.
Legal Topics
Counterfeit Goods, Anton Piller Order, Interlocutory Injunction, Vicarious Liability of Employer, Ex Parte Relief
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Civil Procedure Injunctions Vicarious Liability Counterfeit Goods Anton Piller Order Interlocutory Injunction +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Montres Rolex S.A.

1st Plaintiff

Rolex (Hong Kong) Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Broadway Watch, Jewellery & Goldsmith Company Limited

1st Defendant

Chan Siu Chuen

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Continue Ex Parte Anton Piller Order and Interlocutory Injunction (counterfeit Goods) / Hearing in Chambers on Application to Discharge/continue Injunctions (1 December 1995)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Anton Piller order granted ex parte should be discharged
  2. 2 Whether an interlocutory injunction should continue against the 1st Defendant
  3. 3 Whether the 1st Defendant can be held vicariously liable for the 2nd Defendant's sale of counterfeit watches

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to discharge the Anton Piller order and continued the interlocutory injunction because there was sufficient evidence that the employee carried out material acts in the employer's premises, the nature and price of the counterfeit watches made individual-only culpability less likely, and there was a clearly arguable case of vicarious liability such that leaving the premises available would risk continuation of the illicit trade.

Court Disposition

Anton Piller order not discharged; interlocutory injunction continued against defendants including restraint on use of 1st Defendant's premises; further orders in terms of the remainder of the summons to be made; costs to be heard.

Orders

  • Anton Piller order to remain in force and not discharged as at this hearing.
  • Interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants, whether acting by themselves or by directors, officers, servants or agents, from selling, parting with possession, custody or control of, or otherwise dealing in any watches of the types exhibited TYC3, TYC4 or guarantee certificates TYC5, or any watches bearing...