Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Exclusive licence

Legal area

Court

1 Aug 2007

JET TONE FILMS LTD v. LAU YUEN CHUI LILLIAN t/a LAMBIANCE DESIGN AND MULTIMEDIA

Citation

JET TONE FILMS LTD v. LAU YUEN CHUI LILLIAN t/a LAMBIANCE DESIGN AND MULTIMEDIA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA742/2005

Because the agreement lacked an agreed price and, upon payment of the disputed sum into court, the plaintiff held the exclusive licence under s15 Cap.528, the defendant's failure from 31 May 2005 to deliver the materials and visitor information constituted breach and justified orders for delivery, discovery and an inquiry into damages.
16 Jul 2007

FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. THE EATERY LTD

Citation

FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. THE EATERY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1532/2006

Section 112 must be read broadly to place an exclusive licensee in the same procedural position as the copyright owner so an exclusive licensee may rely on a s.121 affidavit; here the plaintiffs' s.121 affidavit (David Murray) constituted sufficient pleading and prima facie evidence of ownership and chain of licences against a bare denial; particulars and unredacted production requested were irrelevant given the pleaded case and permitted redaction stands; the defendant's appeals are dismissed with costs.
26 Apr 2007

LIAO FU PIN AND ANOTHER v. AD-MAGNETICS CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LIAO FU PIN AND ANOTHER v. AD-MAGNETICS CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1778/2006

The court found the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a high degree of probability of success on the issue of the 2nd defendant’s knowledge of infringement, while there was a strong prima facie case against the 1st defendant for breach of licence; because any costs recovered from the 1st defendant would buffer the 2nd defendant’s exposure, and the merits did not justify ordering security against the plaintiffs, the appeal was dismissed and the application for security for costs was refused.
20 Apr 2007

ASIA TELEVISION LTD AND ANOTHER v. LUXLAND TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

ASIA TELEVISION LTD AND ANOTHER v. LUXLAND TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1830/2000

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the Standard Conditions were not incorporated into the Agreements, the Agreements did not grant an exclusive licence as a matter of their terms, ATVE had not granted licences to third parties and was not in repudiatory breach; the defendants' counterclaim failed; plaintiffs were awarded outstanding licence fees and Lawson was liable on the dishonoured cheques; interest and costs awarded to plaintiffs.
19 Oct 2004

EIICHIRO ODA AND OTHERS v. PO FUNG DEVELOPMENT (HK) LTD

Citation

EIICHIRO ODA AND OTHERS v. PO FUNG DEVELOPMENT (HK) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3358/2001

The court exercised its discretion under Order 38 r 2 and relevant principles of the Evidence Ordinance to require that the four foreign affirmations not be admitted unless the deponents were made available for cross-examination by video-link; cross-examination was necessary because the affirmations addressed crucial contested issues (authority of publishers, scope of licences, matters of foreign law) and could not safely stand untested.
25 May 2001

SHIN CORPORATION v. PACIFIC STAR (FAR EAST) LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

SHIN CORPORATION v. PACIFIC STAR (FAR EAST) LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA16745/1999

The 3rd Plaintiff is not an exclusive licensee under the Copyright Ordinance because the written sub-licence was not signed by or on behalf of the copyright owner and the head licence granted the power to sub-licence only to the 2nd Plaintiff (not its subsidiary), therefore the 3rd Plaintiff lacks a statutory cause of action and must be struck out; additionally the Defendants did not establish a real and bona fide defence and the Plaintiffs' Order 14 summons is allowed.
25 Mar 1996

WHARF CABLE LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

WHARF CABLE LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1493/1995

VOD, as described, is not "broadcasting" within s.2(1)(b) of the Television Ordinance because broadcasting denotes simultaneous transmission to multiple receivers; further, VOD falls within Schedule 1 paragraph 2 as a transmission made available only to persons making a request on a point-to-point basis (point-to-point meaning transmission between one point and another, not dependent on whether the underlying circuit is switched or unswitched). Therefore VOD does not require a licence under the Television Ordinance and the declaratory relief sought was refused.
POLYDOR LTD AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG RECORDS (A FIRM)

Citation

POLYDOR LTD AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG RECORDS (A FIRM)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2601/1976

There was a serious question to be tried on ownership and exclusivity (including contract interpretation under foreign law) and on whether importation from foreign licensees infringed the plaintiffs' rights; on the balance of convenience preservation of the pre-existing status quo and prevention of harm to the plaintiffs' established sales and goodwill outweighed the defendant's limited and quantifiable prejudice, therefore an interim injunction was justified, subject to limited allowance to complete pre-existing orders.