Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forged trade mark

Legal area

Court

3 Apr 2009

HKSAR v. KHAN IJAZ AHMED

Citation

HKSAR v. KHAN IJAZ AHMED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA808/2008

Given the objective test of reasonable diligence and the factual matrix (appellant acting as a favour/shipping intermediary for a known supplier, limited inspection of goods, plausible reasons for rapid shipment and lack of customary certificates), the appellate court concluded that the appellant could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the forged trade marks and therefore proved the defence under s.12(2)(a); conviction was unsafe and was set aside.
10 May 2000

HKSAR v. TSUI CHING WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. TSUI CHING WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA209/2000

The magistrate erred by applying the Court of Appeal decision in Lam Wah which post‑dated the offence; sentencing must be governed by the law and guidelines prevailing at the time of the offence, and on that basis the appropriate penalty was a fine rather than immediate imprisonment.
18 Dec 1999

HKSAR v. NG CHUNG WO

Citation

HKSAR v. NG CHUNG WO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA264/1999

The court upheld the magistrate's findings that the prosecution expert's identification was reliable, that the appellant failed to prove the statutory defence under section 26 on the balance of probabilities, that trial counsel's choices were tactical and not flagrantly incompetent, and that the post‑trial affirmations did not qualify as admissible new evidence; accordingly conviction was maintained but sentence was varied to a suspended custodial sentence with a substantial fine as appropriate deterrent for repeat offending.
7 Sept 1999

HKSAR v. MA KWOK HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. MA KWOK HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA369/1999

The court held that a forged trade mark that becomes apparent when pirated CD ROMs are used on adapted consoles is properly treated as having been "applied" to the discs under s9(2) of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance; the appellant failed to show he took reasonable enquiries to negate knowledge and therefore the conviction in the first case was upheld; however the conviction in the second case was quashed because the refusal to adjourn and the effective denial of counsel of choice and preparation time rendered that trial unfair and the conviction unsafe; the first-case sentence was set aside…
25 Feb 1998

HKSAR v. YEUNG TAK MING

Citation

HKSAR v. YEUNG TAK MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA891/1997

Because the appellant expressly informed the court that he abandoned his out‑of‑time appeal and acknowledged the Magistrate's Statement of Findings, the Court dismissed the appeal against conviction.
9 Jan 1997

R. v. HO CHI WAI

Citation

R. v. HO CHI WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1402/1996

The appellate court held that the Training Centre Order was excessive given the offences were not of the most serious kind and there had been no assessment of the degree of obscenity. A Detention Centre Order, providing short, sharp disciplinary treatment, was the more proportionate and appropriate order for rehabilitation in the circumstances; accordingly the Training Centre Order was set aside and substituted with a Detention Centre Order.
2 Aug 1996

R. v. HUI MING SANG

Citation

R. v. HUI MING SANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA549/1996

The offences involved large‑scale manufacturing and storage of counterfeit medicine across multiple premises, which justified a custodial sentence; however, because the appellant had a clear record, pleaded guilty, cooperated with authorities and the seized pills were non‑toxic, the court suspended the six‑month imprisonment for two years while upholding the fines.
2 Feb 1988

THE QUEEN v. YUEN YUK LUN ALAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. YUEN YUK LUN ALAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA844/1987

Because the appellant signed the contract that caused the goods to be brought into Hong Kong and was the consignee, he is to be regarded as the importer for the purposes of the Trade Description Ordinance; therefore an offence in respect of the goods was committed and the magistrate rightly ordered forfeiture and properly exercised his discretion in refusing release under s.30(4)(d) and in refusing costs under s.28.