Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Dilution

  • 31 Dec 2019

    SIBERIAN MINING GROUP CO LTD v. DAILY LOYAL LTD

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 138
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2169/2019

    The judge held that although the plaintiff reasonably commenced proceedings and had an arguable claim that consent was unreasonably withheld, the Stock Exchange's independent approval and the subsequent placement rendered the originating summons academic; exercising discretion accordingly, neither party had won or lost substantively and the default rule that costs follow the event did not apply, so there should be no order as to costs.

  • 29 Jan 2016

    TWG TEA CO PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSIT WING (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    TWG TEA CO PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSIT WING (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACV15/2015

    The Court dismissed the appeal. It held that passing-off was established on the primary ground of goodwill and inevitable confusion; s18(3) of the TMO is to be read consistently with TRIPS such that para (a) similarity and para (b) likelihood of confusion are distinct but linked, and the trial judge and Court of Appeal did not err in finding similarity and a likelihood of confusion (TWG is the dominant feature); dilution without deception is insufficient for passing-off under Hong Kong law; injunctive relief and registered mark infringement findings under s18(3) are upheld.

  • 7 Feb 2014

    LU JUN v. YU QI AND OTHERS

    Citation
    LU JUN v. YU QI AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV37/2013

    The Court of Appeal upheld the recorder's findings that Mr Lu was the beneficial owner of the 15% shareholding, that Madam Yu's sequence of conduct (assignment of loans to Potala, threats/demands, imposition of unexpected liabilities, sale of Shanghai Hanglong on deferred terms, and diversion of a JV dividend) amounted to unfairly prejudicial conduct justifying a s.168A buy‑out. The proper valuation is on a going‑concern basis as at the date of the petition, without a minority shareholding discount, on the assumptions that allegations against Mr Lu are not made out, unfair prejudice is establ…

  • 4 Jul 2011

    LEUNG PIK WA v. POH PO LIAN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    LEUNG PIK WA v. POH PO LIAN AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA681/2011

    Although there was a serious question to be tried on beneficial ownership, the applicant could not satisfy the requirement to provide an effective cross‑undertaking in damages and the balance of convenience favoured refusing injunctive relief or receivership because potential prejudice to the company and other shareholders and the possibility of adequate compensation meant interlocutory relief was inappropriate; application dismissed.

  • 31 Mar 2008

    AQUA CONCEPTS LTD AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG RESORT CO. LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    AQUA CONCEPTS LTD AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG RESORT CO. LTD AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1658/2007

    There is a serious question to be tried that the defendants' use of the two names may constitute a misrepresentation likely to cause dilution of the plaintiffs' goodwill; damages would be an inadequate remedy for harm to that goodwill; although the plaintiffs delayed, the delay was not fatal; accordingly interlocutory relief restraining the defendants from using the two names should be granted, subject to limited exclusions and costs rules.