Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Legal area

Court

15 Nov 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3471
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1659/2012

The court refused indemnity costs because the ARTSE Parties' conduct, while ultimately unsuccessful on certain issues, was not shown to be dishonest, scandalous or disgraceful to the degree required for indemnity costs; the Emagist Offer improperly sought an unequivocal waiver of all future claims which the ARTSE Parties were justified in preserving; a certificate for two counsel was not justified; accordingly the order nisi was made absolute with all costs to be taxed on a party-to-party basis and the costs of the paper application awarded to the ARTSE Parties.
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…
26 Feb 2014

M.G.X. ASIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHINA WAY GLOBAL COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

M.G.X. ASIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHINA WAY GLOBAL COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2001/2013

The court accepted the plaintiffs' submissions on costs because the central issue of authorship and copyright ownership had not been adjudicated and defendants were better placed to know the truth; accordingly the plaintiffs' proposed apportionment of costs (paras 3(1)–(4) of their submissions) was ordered, a certificate for two counsel was granted, and modified case management directions (including deadlines for amended pleadings and postponement of the CMC) were made.
27 Oct 2009

MAGPUL (ASIA) LTD v. LEE YOW SING t/a 兵工廠

Citation

MAGPUL (ASIA) LTD v. LEE YOW SING t/a 兵工廠
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2139/2008

The evidence (original computer drawings, comparison of finished products and investigator purchases with receipts) established subsistence and ownership of copyright and that the defendant sold virtually identical infringing copies; the defendant failed to raise any triable issue, therefore summary judgment was granted as sought, with a minor amendment to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the summons.
4 Sept 2007

MEYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES LTD v. LEE YUEN HOUSEWARES CO LTD

Citation

MEYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES LTD v. LEE YUEN HOUSEWARES CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1978/2006

The court found on the evidence (contemporaneous emails, sketches and the s121 material) that the original artwork was the sketch by Bonjour employee Susie McCaffrey and the defendant's working drawing derived from it; accordingly Meyer, as successor to Bonjour, is the owner of the copyright and is entitled to a declaration to that effect. However, there was insufficient evidence of a real risk of future infringement by Lee Yuen, so a quia timet injunction was refused while Lee Yuen was given unconditional leave to defend that application.
22 Feb 2005

L & T (ASIA PACIFIC) LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG HONG LAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

L & T (ASIA PACIFIC) LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG HONG LAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4204/2002

The court accepted plaintiffs' evidence and expert opinion, held the three drawings are protected artistic works and that the 2nd plaintiff, as Rossi's employer, is the first owner. The defendants infringed the 2nd plaintiff's copyright by reproducing the drawings and manufacturing substantially identical drums. Relief granted includes delivery up and destruction of infringing drawings and drums, injunctive relief, compulsory disclosure by defendants, assessment of damages and costs, with consideration of additional damages under section 108 left to the Master after disclosure.
3 Sept 2004

PROMOTEC GMBH v. SAN-BAN INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

PROMOTEC GMBH v. SAN-BAN INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3408/2001

The Court found that copyright in the Jelly Watch JW-01 and JW-02 vested in Promotec because the design derives from Mr Lommerzheim's March 1997 drawings; San-Ban failed to prove prior or joint authorship or third‑party authorship. Promotec was entitled to damages for breach of the licence and unpaid licence fees; claims for restitution of royalties and exemplary damages were dismissed.
27 Feb 2004

VIVENDI UNIVERSAL GAMES, INC AND ANOTHER v. GLORY PACIFIC TECHNOLOGY LTD t/a CYBER WORLD

Citation

VIVENDI UNIVERSAL GAMES, INC AND ANOTHER v. GLORY PACIFIC TECHNOLOGY LTD t/a CYBER WORLD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5680/2003

The plaintiffs proved ownership of the copyright and established that the defendant made unauthorized infringing copies available to the public in its cyber café, thereby breaching the plaintiffs' exclusive rights; accordingly the plaintiffs are entitled to final judgment and the relief sought.
13 Aug 1999

SKYDON DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. MICRO ORGANIZATION LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

SKYDON DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. MICRO ORGANIZATION LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10588/1998

The plaintiff's database was an original compilation involving sufficient skill, labour and judgment, the plaintiff owned the copyright as employer, the defendants reproduced the plaintiff's work as shown by convincing evidence including identical errors, the defendants' defences (lack of originality, non-ownership, public policy/government ownership, Anton Piller restraint) fail, and summary judgment is appropriate with damages to be assessed including for breach of fiduciary duty by the second and fourth defendants.
5 Feb 1996

BINARY EVOLUTION COMPUTERS LID. v. SUPREME DAY COMPANY LIMITED and Others

Citation

BINARY EVOLUTION COMPUTERS LID. v. SUPREME DAY COMPANY LIMITED and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL198/1995

The plaintiff was not entitled to the requested particulars because the defence as pleaded fairly answered the points of claim and defendants cannot be compelled to particularise facts or allegations they have not advanced; denials of ownership, licence and knowledge were sufficient; therefore the amended summons for further particulars was dismissed and costs allocated as stated.