TIMEX CORPORATION v. TIME PROCESSOR HOLDING LTD

TIMEX CORPORATION v. TIME PROCESSOR HOLDING LTD

The ex parte Anton Piller order was discharged because the plaintiff misled the court by materially misstating that sales were increasing; the inter partes interlocutory injunction was refused because the plaintiff raised serious questions to be tried but damages were an adequate remedy (applying American Cyanamid),...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TIMEX CORPORATION v. TIME PROCESSOR HOLDING LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: TIMEX CORPORATION; Defendant: TIME PROCESSOR HOLDING LTD.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 March 1984
Case Number
HCA536/1984
Procedural Posture
Copyright and Passing Off / Interlocutory Stage — Ex Parte Anton Piller Order Discharged; Inter Partes Interlocutory Injunction Dismissed
Outcome
Ex parte Anton Piller order discharged; Plaintiff's inter partes application for interlocutory injunction dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Anton Piller Search Order, Adequacy of Damages, Misleading Ex Parte Evidence
Source Language
en
Copyright Passing Off Injunctive Relief Anton Piller Order Interim Injunction Anton Piller Search Order Adequacy of Damages Misleading Ex Parte Evidence

Source-derived case record

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TIMEX CORPORATION

Plaintiff

TIME PROCESSOR HOLDING LTD.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Copyright and Passing Off / Interlocutory Stage — Ex Parte Anton Piller Order Discharged; Inter Partes Interlocutory Injunction Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an ex parte Anton Piller order was justified
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff misled the court on the ex parte application by misstating sales figures
  3. 3 Whether there is a serious question to be tried on copyright and passing-off

Ratio Decidendi

The ex parte Anton Piller order was discharged because the plaintiff misled the court by materially misstating that sales were increasing; the inter partes interlocutory injunction was refused because the plaintiff raised serious questions to be tried but damages were an adequate remedy (applying American Cyanamid), and there was no evidence of irreparable injury or inferior/undercutting sales by the defendant.

Court Disposition

Ex parte Anton Piller order discharged; Plaintiff's inter partes application for interlocutory injunction dismissed.

Orders

  • Ex parte Anton Piller order of 24 January 1984 discharged (judgment delivered 15 March 1984)
  • Inter partes summons for interlocutory injunction dismissed