Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Registered design infringement

Legal area

Court

22 Jun 2016

SMART TRIKE MNF. PTE. LTD AND ANOTHER v. FUNG KWOK HOI AND ANOTHER

Citation

SMART TRIKE MNF. PTE. LTD AND ANOTHER v. FUNG KWOK HOI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1989/2014

Defendants failed to produce credible evidence or particulars to raise triable issues on licence/consent or lack of originality; their admitted purchase and resale of the Subject Products placed them at the head of the distribution chain constituting primary infringement of copyright and trade mark and design infringement; alternatively, objective facts gave them reason to believe the products were infringing, so no arguable defence exists; summary judgment is therefore granted for the 1st Plaintiff.
24 Aug 2007

DYNASTY ELECTRONICS LTD v. MAP INTERNATIONAL MARKETING LTD

Citation

DYNASTY ELECTRONICS LTD v. MAP INTERNATIONAL MARKETING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2817/2006

The court found the plaintiff's evidence that Map International was confronted at the Berlin fair and was informed of the registered design to be credible and the defendant's bare denials not credible; Map International failed to establish a bona fide 'innocent infringer' defence under s.51 and therefore no triable issue existed on the registered design claim, entitling the plaintiff to summary judgment and the relief sought on that claim.
8 May 2006

BANG & OLUFSEN A/S v. TO HOK CHUNG

Citation

BANG & OLUFSEN A/S v. TO HOK CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2596/2005

Summary judgment under Order 14 was refused and the summons dismissed because multiple genuine triable issues existed: absence of pleaded contemporaneous knowledge for secondary copyright infringement; a substantial question as to validity of the registered design (whether the oval unit is an "article" sold separately); uncertainty whether the goods were imported into Hong Kong; and a triable issue as to the defendant's knowledge of the registration relevant to damages, such that summary disposal was inappropriate.
16 Dec 2005

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. v. B. MARLBOROS INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD

Citation

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. v. B. MARLBOROS INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2463/2005

The ex parte interim injunction was properly granted because Philips had justified suspicion that the goods would be diverted or modified and Marlboros and Glomail gave no reliable explanation; the replacement bill of lading lacked integrity and did not improve Marlboros' case; accordingly the application to discharge failed and the injunction was allowed to lapse with costs awarded to Philips.
18 May 2005

NU LOOK IPI ENTERPRISES LTD v. TUNG LICK PLASTIC MANUFACTORY

Citation

NU LOOK IPI ENTERPRISES LTD v. TUNG LICK PLASTIC MANUFACTORY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1880/2003

The court refused the interim injunction on discretionary grounds due to the plaintiff's inordinate and unexplained delay; refused summary judgment under Order 14 because there are substantive, evidence‑sensitive defences (notably prior art/novelty and lack of knowledge of registration) and issues of originality/copying requiring trial; granted the defendant unconditional leave to defend the copyright, registered design and passing‑off claims; refused to order a speedy trial; ordered costs for the defendant (order nisi).
21 Sept 2001

MONTRES ROLEX S.A. AND ANOTHER v. TSOI CHI LI

Citation

MONTRES ROLEX S.A. AND ANOTHER v. TSOI CHI LI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP361/2001

The court found beyond reasonable doubt that Tsoi had clear knowledge of both orders, that he was the alter ego of the trading companies, and that the watches and promotional material substantially reproduced Rolex designs and the Submariner mark and bezel registered design; therefore he was guilty of contempt for breaching both orders and liable to custodial sentence and costs.
26 Jul 2001

LI PO FAI t/a LANDFORD INDUSTRIAL CO. v. RADIANT ELECTRONICS LTD.

Citation

LI PO FAI t/a LANDFORD INDUSTRIAL CO. v. RADIANT ELECTRONICS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1213/2001

Minor alterations to a copied watch box did not prevent infringement: on the inexpert eye test the defendant's product was sufficiently similar to the registered design and the plaintiff's drawings were substantially reproduced, so there was no arguable defence and summary judgment was warranted.
23 May 2001

CHEERFUL ENTERPRISES CO. LTD. v. NISHA ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES LTD.

Citation

CHEERFUL ENTERPRISES CO. LTD. v. NISHA ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA993/2001

The plaintiff's Hong Kong design registration constituted prima facie proof of exclusive rights; the defendant sold articles to which a design not substantially different had been applied; the defendant was put on notice and took no steps to investigate, therefore it could not rely on lack of knowledge to avoid liability for damages and had no real defence to defeat an Order 14 summary judgment; final relief and ancillary orders were appropriate.
20 Oct 2000

MAK KAI SHUN v. XU QING HAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

MAK KAI SHUN v. XU QING HAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA312/2000

The registered design was valid and subsisting and the defendants' product was a virtually identical reproduction with evidence of direct copying and admissions of manufacture and sale; the defendants failed to file affidavit evidence or plead and prove the statutory s.51(1) defence or any triable issue under O.14; accordingly summary judgment was entered for the plaintiffs.
24 Feb 2000

CHAP MEI PLASTIC TOYS MANUFACTORY LTD. v. VERESON LTD.

Citation

CHAP MEI PLASTIC TOYS MANUFACTORY LTD. v. VERESON LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA18605/1999

The defendant's catalogue statements and admissions to investigators, combined with the visual identity between the defendant's product and the plaintiff's registered design and the absence of any credible affidavit or affirmative evidence from the defendant, demonstrated that there was no triable issue and entitled the plaintiff to summary judgment.