SESDERMA, S.L. v. SEEKY INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

SESDERMA, S.L. v. SEEKY INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

The 2018 Distributorship Agreement contains a valid and applicable arbitration clause that, as a matter of construction and in light of the Court's prior decision that the 2018 Agreement superseded the 2017 Agreement, covers the plaintiff's trademark and related tort claims; issue estoppel bars the plaintiff from re‑asserting the continued effect of the 2017 jurisdiction clause; accordingly a mandatory stay under section 20 of the Arbitration Ordinance was required and granted.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1619
Parties
Plaintiff: SESDERMA, S.L.; 1st Defendant: SEEKY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: GOLONG CO., LTD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 June 2023
Case Number
HCA1815/2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Litigation (trademark, Contract, Arbitration) / Application for Stay to Arbitration Under Section 20 of the Arbitration Ordinance; Judgment Granting Stay
Outcome
Mandatory stay granted under section 20 of the Arbitration Ordinance; costs ordered against the plaintiff; order nisi issued to be made absolute unless varied within 14 days.
Legal Topics
Arbitration Clause Construction, Stay of Proceedings (section 20), Issue Estoppel / Res Judicata, Forum Non Conveniens (alternative), Trademark Squatting, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
Source Language
EN
Arbitration Contract Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Tort Arbitration Clause Construction Stay of Proceedings (section 20) Issue Estoppel / Res Judicata +3 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SESDERMA, S.L.

Plaintiff

SEEKY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

1st Defendant

GOLONG CO., LTD

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Litigation (trademark, Contract, Arbitration) / Application for Stay to Arbitration Under Section 20 of the Arbitration Ordinance; Judgment Granting Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration clause in the 2018 Distributorship Agreement covers the plaintiff's tortious trademark claims and disputes with the defendant(s)
  2. 2 Whether the 2018 Agreement superseded the 2017 Agreement and thereby displaced the 2017 jurisdiction clause
  3. 3 Whether issue estoppel prevents the plaintiff relying on the 2017 Agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The 2018 Distributorship Agreement contains a valid and applicable arbitration clause that, as a matter of construction and in light of the Court's prior decision that the 2018 Agreement superseded the 2017 Agreement, covers the plaintiff's trademark and related tort claims; issue estoppel bars the plaintiff from re‑asserting the continued effect of the 2017 jurisdiction clause; accordingly a mandatory stay under section 20 of the Arbitration Ordinance was required and granted.

Court Disposition

Mandatory stay granted under section 20 of the Arbitration Ordinance; costs ordered against the plaintiff; order nisi issued to be made absolute unless varied within 14 days.

Orders

  • Stay of these proceedings granted and stayed for arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause in the 2018 Distributorship Agreement (section 20 Arbitration Ordinance)
  • Costs of and incidental to the summons for stay to be paid by the plaintiff to the 2nd defendant, with certificate for Counsel