18 Nov 2025
Given the scale, value and nature of the counterfeit operation, the appellant's repeat offending, and absence of exceptional mitigation beyond the guilty plea, the Magistrate's chosen starting points and one‑third guilty plea discount were appropriate and the custodial sentence of six months was not manifestly excessive.
25 Sept 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the magistrate and deputy judge reasonably concluded, on the facts (joint lease and shared responsibility, applicant's awareness of counterfeit risk, duty to ensure genuineness, and the nature of goods), that the applicant failed to show he could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained the forged trade marks and therefore did not satisfy s26AAB(a)(iii); no substantial and grave injustice was shown.
4 Jun 2020
Grant of summary judgment because the plaintiffs produced a repair note issued by the defendant confirming the transaction and the defendant failed to challenge the authenticity of that document or provide positive explanation; the defendant's bare denial did not raise a triable issue or an arguable defence.
13 Nov 1986
Appeal allowed on Charge C because, on visual comparison and having regard to unconsidered contextual factors, the kangaroo device on the socks was not sufficiently similar to the registered mark to be likely to deceive under s.9(2). Appeal allowed on Charge F because possession of a watch bearing a forged trade mark for the limited purpose of using its working movement for repair did not constitute possessing the goods 'for the purpose of trade or manufacture' under s.9(2).
5 Mar 1974
Expert opinion was admissible and properly founded on the witness's trade knowledge; where large numbers of counterfeit watches and deliberate conduct risk damaging Hong Kong's export reputation custodial sentences are justified, but where the number of forged items is minimal and the appellant's record is clear a fine may be substituted for imprisonment.