28 Oct 2022
The applicant, being a member, had locus and satisfied the Easewin 'more than a shadowy prospect' test because the company indisputably still holds the Percival Street property; therefore it was just to restore the company to enable the asset to be managed and put to productive use and the court ordered restoration in terms of the draft order.
3 Oct 2018
Defendant made no procedural response; the defendant's company name is practically identical to the plaintiffs' long-used tradename and the businesses overlap, permitting the court to infer deliberate passing off; therefore plaintiffs entitled to default judgment and ancillary relief including injunctions, delivery up and mandatory company name change.
1 Mar 2016
The plaintiffs were entitled to default judgment and injunctive and ancillary relief for trade mark infringement and passing off, but the court has no jurisdiction (and should not exercise any purported jurisdiction) to empower the plaintiffs' solicitors to sign and file documents to change the defendant company's name or to order the Registrar to change the name; plaintiffs must proceed under the statutory Registrar route in section 108 of the Companies Ordinance.
3 Jan 2013
The court held that the allegations in the statement of claim did not amount to an allegation of fraud that would invoke Order 14 r.1(2)(b) to bar summary judgment; on the facts Victor held the domain and website for the plaintiff (plaintiff paid for and used them in the course of business) so there was no credible defence to beneficial ownership; the plaintiff established the trinity for passing-off (distinctive goodwill, misrepresentation by defendants, likelihood of damage); accordingly summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff and injunctive/proprietary relief and costs were ordered…