TSIT WING (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TWG TEA COMPANY PTE LTD AND ANOTHER

TSIT WING (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TWG TEA COMPANY PTE LTD AND ANOTHER

The court found that plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonably good and arguable case of trade mark infringement under s18(3) and s18(4) and of passing off, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting an interlocutory injunction because defendants were aware of plaintiffs' marks, opened their salon despite negotiation and a cease‑and‑desist, and plaintiffs' potential damage would be incalculable whereas defendants' loss was more readily compensable by damages.

Citation
TSIT WING (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TWG TEA COMPANY PTE LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Tsit Wing (Hong Kong) Company Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Tsit Wing International Company Limited; 1st Defendant: TWG Tea Company Pte Ltd; 2nd Defendant: TWG Tea (HK) Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 February 2012
Case Number
HCA2210/2011
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark and Passing Off Action / Interlocutory Injunction Application (chambers)
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted on terms agreed between the parties; plaintiffs' costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Goodwill, Likelihood of Confusion, Well Known Trade Mark, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Trade Mark Law Passing Off Interlocutory Injunction Goodwill Likelihood of Confusion Well Known Trade Mark Balance of Convenience

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

Tsit Wing (Hong Kong) Company Limited

1st Plaintiff

Tsit Wing International Company Limited

2nd Plaintiff

TWG Tea Company Pte Ltd

1st Defendant

TWG Tea (HK) Company Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Trade Mark and Passing Off Action / Interlocutory Injunction Application (chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants infringed plaintiffs' registered trade marks under Trade Marks Ordinance s18(3)
  2. 2 Whether defendants' use took unfair advantage of or was detrimental to well-known marks under Trade Marks Ordinance s18(4)
  3. 3 Whether defendants liable in passing off (goodwill, misrepresentation, damage)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonably good and arguable case of trade mark infringement under s18(3) and s18(4) and of passing off, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting an interlocutory injunction because defendants were aware of plaintiffs' marks, opened their salon despite negotiation and a cease‑and‑desist, and plaintiffs' potential damage would be incalculable whereas defendants' loss was more readily compensable by damages.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted on terms agreed between the parties; plaintiffs' costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Interim injunction restraining defendants from using the two identified infringing marks in Hong Kong (as per agreed terms)
  • Interlocutory injunction granted on terms subsequently agreed between the parties