PARADOX SECURITY SYSTEMS LTD. v. PROCEEDING ENGINEERING CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

PARADOX SECURITY SYSTEMS LTD. v. PROCEEDING ENGINEERING CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

Paragraph 1(b) was refused because the evidence before the court did not establish any confusion between the defendants' products and the plaintiff's marked products; the court granted a pro tempore injunction in amended terms to preserve positions and issued directions for further evidence and hearing.

Citation
PARADOX SECURITY SYSTEMS LTD. v. PROCEEDING ENGINEERING CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: PARADOX SECURITY SYSTEMS LTD.; 1st Defendant: PROCEEDING ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD.; 2nd Defendant: PROCEEDING SECURITY EQUIPMENT COMPANY LTD.; 3rd Defendant: WINJADE INVESTMENT LTD.; 4th Defendant: KAN WAI KWONG (also known as FRANKIE KAN); 5th Defendant: KWONG YEE MAN (also known as ELLA KWONG)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 January 2003
Case Number
HCA266/2003
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction (pro Tempore Injunction) / Directions Hearing / Interim Injunction Granted
Outcome
Pro tempore injunction granted in amended terms; paragraph 1(b) deleted; directions given for further evidence and hearing; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Trademark Infringement, Likelihood of Confusion, Evidence, Court Directions
Source Language
EN
Trademark Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Injunctions Interim Injunction Trademark Infringement Likelihood of Confusion Evidence +1 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PARADOX SECURITY SYSTEMS LTD.

Plaintiff

PROCEEDING ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD.

1st Defendant

PROCEEDING SECURITY EQUIPMENT COMPANY LTD.

2nd Defendant

WINJADE INVESTMENT LTD.

3rd Defendant

KAN WAI KWONG (also known as FRANKIE KAN)

4th Defendant

KWONG YEE MAN (also known as ELLA KWONG)

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Injunction (pro Tempore Injunction) / Directions Hearing / Interim Injunction Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether relief sought in paragraph 1(b) should be included in the pro tempore injunction on the basis of alleged trademark infringement
  2. 2 Whether the evidence before the court demonstrates a likelihood of confusion between defendants' products and plaintiff's trademarked products
  3. 3 Terms and scope of the interim injunction and procedural directions for the full hearing

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 1(b) was refused because the evidence before the court did not establish any confusion between the defendants' products and the plaintiff's marked products; the court granted a pro tempore injunction in amended terms to preserve positions and issued directions for further evidence and hearing.

Court Disposition

Pro tempore injunction granted in amended terms; paragraph 1(b) deleted; directions given for further evidence and hearing; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Order made in terms of paragraph 1 of the revised draft order as amended: addition of 'within Hong Kong' after 'the Plaintiff' in the 1st line and amendment to 1(d) as handed up; paragraph 1(b) deleted
  • Leave to the Defendants to file and serve evidence in opposition within 42 days from the date hereof