CAPCOM CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. PIONEER TECHNOLOGIES LTD AND ANOTHER

CAPCOM CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. PIONEER TECHNOLOGIES LTD AND ANOTHER

The Court refused leave to appeal because the trial judge properly concluded that the defendants had an arguable defence of fair dealing under s.39(1) and that there were triable issues of fact and mixed law and fact making summary judgment inappropriate; the matter should proceed to trial.

Citation
CAPCOM CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. PIONEER TECHNOLOGIES LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: CAPCOM COMPANY LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: CAPCOM ASIA COMPANY LIMITED; 1st Defendant: PIONEER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: CHAN LIK HANG, KELVIN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 June 2008
Case Number
HCMP828/2008
Procedural Posture
Copyright Infringement Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Refused at Court of Appeal; Summary Judgment Denied at Trial Court and Matter to Proceed to Trial
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; case to proceed to trial on the merits
Legal Topics
Fair Dealing, Summary Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Trial
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Copyright Civil Procedure Fair Dealing Summary Judgment Leave to Appeal Trial

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CAPCOM COMPANY LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

CAPCOM ASIA COMPANY LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

PIONEER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

1st Defendant

CHAN LIK HANG, KELVIN

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Copyright Infringement Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Refused at Court of Appeal; Summary Judgment Denied at Trial Court and Matter to Proceed to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants' use of game frames/images in a magazine article constituted fair dealing for criticism or review under section 39(1) of the Copyright Ordinance (Cap. 528)
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment was appropriate given an arguable defence of fair dealing and disputed facts
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal should grant leave to appeal from a decision denying summary judgment in a case involving mixed questions of law and fact and potential expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused leave to appeal because the trial judge properly concluded that the defendants had an arguable defence of fair dealing under s.39(1) and that there were triable issues of fact and mixed law and fact making summary judgment inappropriate; the matter should proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; case to proceed to trial on the merits

Orders

  • Leave to appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal
  • Proceed to trial; summary judgment dismissal by the District Court stands