THE QUEEN v. BOB LIT

THE QUEEN v. BOB LIT

The magistrate properly convicted the appellant because he was properly charged in his personal capacity, section 20 does not preclude charging a director, the stylised mark used by the appellant so closely resembled the registered "les must de Cartier" as to be calculated to deceive or likely to cause confusion, and statutory defences under section 26 were not established; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the conviction and fine are upheld.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. BOB LIT
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Bob Lit; Respondent: The Queen
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 June 1992
Case Number
HCMA314/1992
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and fine upheld
Legal Topics
Trade Descriptions, Possession for Purpose of Trade, Section 9(2) Trade Descriptions Ordinance, Section 20 Corporate Liability, Section 26 Defences, Likelihood of Confusion, Meaning of "calculated to Deceive"
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Criminal Law Corporate Liability Trade Mark Law Trade Descriptions Possession for Purpose of Trade Section 9(2) Trade Descriptions Ordinance Section 20 Corporate Liability +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bob Lit

Appellant/defendant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a director may be charged personally where the company carried out the alleged offending conduct
  2. 2 Whether section 20 of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance precludes charging the director in his personal capacity
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's mark "most be Cantior" so resembled "les must de Cartier" as to be calculated to deceive or likely to cause confusion

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate properly convicted the appellant because he was properly charged in his personal capacity, section 20 does not preclude charging a director, the stylised mark used by the appellant so closely resembled the registered "les must de Cartier" as to be calculated to deceive or likely to cause confusion, and statutory defences under section 26 were not established; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the conviction and fine are upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and fine upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction under section 9(2) of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance upheld