WAL-MART STORES INC. AND ANOTHER v. WAL-MART PRODUCTION LTD AND ANOTHER

WAL-MART STORES INC. AND ANOTHER v. WAL-MART PRODUCTION LTD AND ANOTHER

Defendants did not comply with the court order nor adduce evidence to justify an extension of time and their defences disclose no arguable defence to the passing-off claims; consequently the applications to deem the late defences properly served are refused and the Plaintiffs' applications for default judgment are allowed.

Citation
WAL-MART STORES INC. AND ANOTHER v. WAL-MART PRODUCTION LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: WAL-MART STORES INC.; 2nd Plaintiff: WAL-MART CHINA COMPANY LTD; 1st Defendant (hca1285): WAL-MART PRODUCTION LIMITED; 1st Defendant (hca1288): WAL-MART INDUSTRIAL LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: LEUNG KA KIT
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 October 2008
Case Number
HCA1285/2008
Procedural Posture
Passing Off (civil) / Hearing on Applications for Default Judgment and to Deem Defences Filed (interlocutory)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' applications for default judgment allowed; Defendants' applications dismissed; defences filed on 19 September not deemed properly served or filed.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Service and Filing of Defence, Goodwill, International Reputation, Extension of Time
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Passing Off Civil Procedure Default Judgment Service and Filing of Defence Goodwill International Reputation Extension of Time

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WAL-MART STORES INC.

1st Plaintiff

WAL-MART CHINA COMPANY LTD

2nd Plaintiff

WAL-MART PRODUCTION LIMITED

1st Defendant (hca1285)

WAL-MART INDUSTRIAL LIMITED

1st Defendant (hca1288)

LEUNG KA KIT

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Passing Off (civil) / Hearing on Applications for Default Judgment and to Deem Defences Filed (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defences filed late should be deemed properly served and filed
  2. 2 Whether Defendants complied with Master Wong's order to file defences
  3. 3 Whether the defences disclose an arguable defence to the Plaintiffs' passing-off claims

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants did not comply with the court order nor adduce evidence to justify an extension of time and their defences disclose no arguable defence to the passing-off claims; consequently the applications to deem the late defences properly served are refused and the Plaintiffs' applications for default judgment are allowed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' applications for default judgment allowed; Defendants' applications dismissed; defences filed on 19 September not deemed properly served or filed.

Orders

  • Defendants' applications dismissed
  • Defences filed on 19 September are not deemed properly served or filed