H&M HENNES & MAURITZ GBC AB v. ZOETOP BUSINESS CO LTD AND OTHERS

H&M HENNES & MAURITZ GBC AB v. ZOETOP BUSINESS CO LTD AND OTHERS

Summary judgment refused and unconditional leave to defend granted because triable issues exist: (a) whether the first putting into circulation occurred outside Hong Kong (s24(3)) so primary infringement is contested; (b) whether Defendants had knowledge or reason to believe goods were infringing is disputed and fact‑sensitive, creating a triable issue for secondary infringement; and (c) whether the 2nd Defendant participated in a common design to make it a joint tortfeasor is a live issue. Costs ordered in the cause.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1175
Parties
Plaintiff: H&M HENNES & MAURITZ GBC AB; 1st Defendant: ZOETOP BUSINESS CO. LTD.; 2nd Defendant: SHIEN GROUP LIMITED; 3rd Defendant (settled): PINJUN EXPRESS CO. LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 May 2023
Case Number
HCIP31/2021
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Copyright / Summary Judgment Application (leave to Defend Granted)
Outcome
Summary judgment refused; Defendants granted unconditional leave to defend
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Primary Infringement, Secondary Infringement, Joint Tortfeasor, Making Available Online
Source Language
EN
Copyright Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Primary Infringement Secondary Infringement Joint Tortfeasor Making Available Online

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H&M HENNES & MAURITZ GBC AB

Plaintiff

ZOETOP BUSINESS CO. LTD.

1st Defendant

SHIEN GROUP LIMITED

2nd Defendant

PINJUN EXPRESS CO. LIMITED

3rd Defendant (settled)

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Copyright / Summary Judgment Application (leave to Defend Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Plaintiff owns the alleged copyright works and whether copyright subsists
  2. 2 Whether the alleged infringing goods are copies of the Plaintiff's works
  3. 3 Whether Defendants committed primary infringement under ss 24 and 26 CO

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment refused and unconditional leave to defend granted because triable issues exist: (a) whether the first putting into circulation occurred outside Hong Kong (s24(3)) so primary infringement is contested; (b) whether Defendants had knowledge or reason to believe goods were infringing is disputed and fact‑sensitive, creating a triable issue for secondary infringement; and (c) whether the 2nd Defendant participated in a common design to make it a joint tortfeasor is a live issue. Costs ordered in the cause.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused; Defendants granted unconditional leave to defend

Orders

  • Defendants granted unconditional leave to defend
  • Costs of the summary judgment application to be costs in the cause