Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Account of profits vs damages

Legal area

Court

28 Mar 2022

EMAGIST ENTERTAINMENT LTD v. NETHER GAMES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1659/2012

On the evidence the Game Business was not a partnership; ART were employees (or commissioned contractors) whose work and commissioned elements gave Emagist the copyright under the Copyright Ordinance; ART unlawfully migrated source code and databases and are liable to Emagist; Emagist's quantifiable recoverable sum is the funds ART paid into court (US$455,928.39) as reflecting loss/account; ART and Eric counterclaims and claims based on partnership, misappropriation and wrongful allotment fail for lack of merit or locus; certain reliefs (derivative actions, orders affecting third-party invest…
20 May 2021

LEADERS COSMETICS CO, LTD (formerly known as SANSUNG LIFE & SCIENCE JOOSIKHOESA and also known as SANSUNG LIFE & SCIENCE CO, LTD) v. CHEUNG WAI PAN t/a JUFENG GLOBAL COMESTIC CO

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1511
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2626/2017

Defendants failed to demonstrate any triable issue or provide evidence to support the parallel import/authorisation defence; consequently summary judgment was appropriate and final injunctive and ancillary relief, including delivery up, disclosure, election as to damages or account of profits and assessed costs, were granted to the plaintiff.
20 May 2021

LEADERS COSMETICS CO, LTD (formerly known as SANSUNG LIFE & SCIENCE JOOSIKHOESA and also known as SANSUNG LIFE & SCIENCE CO, LTD) v. BEST SELLER AGENCY LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1511
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2627/2017

Defendants failed to demonstrate any triable defence or evidential basis for their parallel import defence; admissible evidence including expert comparison established the impugned products were not genuine and infringed plaintiff's trade marks, passing off and copyright; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate and injunctions, delivery up, disclosure, election for account or damages and costs were ordered.
30 Aug 2013

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

Citation

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

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2210/2011

The court granted comprehensive injunctive and ancillary relief tailored to Tsit Wing’s successful findings of trade mark infringement under s 18(3) TMO and passing off, limited the defendants' proposed broad formulations, fixed transitional periods (chiefly 60 days from 30 August 2013 for implementation, with 14 days to withdraw HK trade mark applications and 35 days for Norwich-style discovery), authorized plaintiffs to act if defendants fail to comply, permitted limited delivery up and required affidavits on oath, allowed specific discovery for assessment of profits/damages and release fro…
12 Apr 2013

UNION KNOPF (HK) LTD v. MARCEL SOSSNOWSKI AND ANOTHER

Citation

UNION KNOPF (HK) LTD v. MARCEL SOSSNOWSKI AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ680/2010

Because the case was prepared on the basis that liability and quantum would be dealt with together, discovery had been ordered and documents disclosed, and fairness requires the plaintiff have evidence from witness examination before electing, the plaintiff was directed to elect between alternative remedies for each cause of action latest by closing submissions; no split trial ordered as no application made and exceptional grounds not shown.
28 Feb 1997

MACY\'S CANDIES LTD. v. CHAN MAN HONG and Others

Citation

MACY\'S CANDIES LTD. v. CHAN MAN HONG and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA13060/1996

The Mareva injunction was discharged because, although a risk of dissipation and a good arguable case on past breaches were established, continuation would work serious injustice by depriving the 1st Defendant of the opportunity to make a living; the plaintiff already had substantial security in the 1st Defendant's 12.5% shareholding; the plaintiff's realistic maximum claim could be fixed at about HKD3,000,000 on revised calculations; and the undertakings offered by the 1st Defendant provided adequate protection for any claim exceeding that sum.
13 Feb 1996

CHINA LIGHT & POWER CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. MICHAEL EDWARD ASHTON FORD

Citation

CHINA LIGHT & POWER CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. MICHAEL EDWARD ASHTON FORD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV108/1995

Majority held that while damages (including potentially exemplary damages) are available for breach of confidence, the appellants were not entitled to an immediate quantified award of exemplary damages tied to contingent US recoveries; the pre-existing award of HK$321,270.13 (special damages) stands as an interim, enforceable award; exemplary damages, if appropriate, should be assessed after the respondent's US proceedings conclude or pursued in fresh proceedings if a recoverable profit is shown.
21 Dec 1981

SHUN HING CO v. EASEY GARMENT FACTORY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SHUN HING CO v. EASEY GARMENT FACTORY LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV124/1981

Because the Defendant had paid into court sums that in substance covered the profits ultimately assessed and the Plaintiffs obtained no more than those payments, and because the Registrar gave no reasons for awarding costs beyond 17 September 1980, the Court ordered that the Plaintiffs must pay the Defendant's costs from 17 September 1980; the Registrar's general discretion did not justify a different result in the absence of reasons.