Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Goodwill

Legal area

Court

14 Nov 2025

AUTOMOBILI LAMBORGHINI S.p.A. v. JARVIS MOJO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6258
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP66/2025

On uncontradicted evidence the plaintiff established an arguable case of trademark infringement under s18(2) and (3) of the Trade Marks Ordinance and of passing off; the defendants had notice and failed to oppose; damages would not adequately compensate harm to the plaintiff's goodwill; accordingly interlocutory injunctions in the terms of the summons as amended were justified and were granted.
19 Feb 2025

DR. BUT YIU KUEN, DAVID v. HONG KONG MEDICAL CONSULTANTS LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1102
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1089/2021

On the pleaded facts (admitted by absence of defence or by withdrawal) the five‑year, 3‑kilometre covenant was void as an unreasonable restraint of trade; a declaratory judgment was necessary to do fullest justice; and indemnity costs were justified given defendant's withdrawal, lack of cogent evidence in support of serious allegations, failure to comply with orders and failure to explain the withdrawal.
12 Mar 2024

RECKITT & COLMAN (OVERSEAS) HEALTH LTD AND ANOTHER v. WHEALTHFIELDS (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 760
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP2/2022

Summary judgment was refused because there are triable issues of fact as to whether a substantial part of the Plaintiffs' copyright work was copied and as to elements of the passing-off claim; factual matters (generic nature of bonus-pack designs, comparative market shares, designer evidence, and survey methodology) require full trial; accordingly the Defendant is granted unconditional leave to defend.
21 May 2018

INTERACTIVE MEDIA NETWORK (CHINA) HOLDINGS LTD v. JUST MEDIA GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1114
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2291/2017

Refusal of the interlocutory injunction because there was real doubt on the adequacy of damages for both sides and the balance of convenience favoured refusing an injunction to avoid interrupting what amounted to an established enterprise; instead the court ordered a speedy trial and procedural directions.
28 Mar 2018

LE’SEAN GROUP LTD v. MOSS McBLACK GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 861
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA201/2018

The court found there was a serious issue to be tried: the plaintiff had established sufficient goodwill in the Moss McBlack name and the defendants' use of 'Blake/Black McBlack' together with a very similar logo and presentation was likely to cause public assumption of a connection (misrepresentation). Damages were not an adequate remedy and the balance of convenience favoured granting an interlocutory injunction limited to preventing use of the mark/logo in the defendants' florist business; costs to be in the cause.
30 Nov 2017

OPERATION SMILE, INC. v. BEAM INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION LTD

Citation

OPERATION SMILE, INC. v. BEAM INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1026/2015

The court held that the plaintiff was the proprietor of the OPERATION SMILE marks and had established goodwill in Hong Kong and Mainland China, the defendant was an alter ego/licensee whose licence was validly terminated and who continued to use the plaintiff's marks and names thereby committing trademark infringement and passing off; no real defence existed and summary judgment was granted for the plaintiff in the terms prayed with costs.
17 Nov 2016

WONG TO YICK WOOD LOCK OINTMENT LTD v. HO MIU WAN (trading as SEUIH KAM TONG MEDICINE CO)

Citation

WONG TO YICK WOOD LOCK OINTMENT LTD v. HO MIU WAN (trading as SEUIH KAM TONG MEDICINE CO)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1393/2014

The defence discloses no defence in law to the plaintiff's trade mark infringement claims under s.18(3) and s.18(4) of the TMO because extraneous distinguishing matters outside the sign cannot negate the statutory test and the pleaded facts show at least a prima facie link/likelihood; accordingly the defence to the trade mark claims is struck out and judgment entered for the plaintiff on those claims. However the defence to the passing off claim raises triable issues of misrepresentation in the context of trade get-up and is not struck out.
14 Oct 2016

JESSOP & BAIRD (HONG KONG) LTD v. NEO HWEE KHIM AND OTHERS

Citation

JESSOP & BAIRD (HONG KONG) LTD v. NEO HWEE KHIM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2572/2016

The mandatory injunction was continued because the plaintiff provided persuasive evidence that the contested property belonged to it and was held at D5, D3 demonstrated control over D5 by his communications and conduct, and damages were inadequate given the risk to orders and goodwill; therefore the high standard for granting an interim mandatory injunction was met.
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.
3 Nov 2015

INTERNATIONAL HOTEL INVESTMENTS PLC AND ANOTHER v. JET UNION DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

INTERNATIONAL HOTEL INVESTMENTS PLC AND ANOTHER v. JET UNION DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1941/2015

Although the court identified some serious issues to be tried (limited goodwill for hotels, potential similarity of mark, and arguable overlap in field), on balance the plaintiffs failed to show a strong case of likely misrepresentation or well-known mark in Hong Kong for residential sales; the defendants' contextual use (prominent display of Sino Land and K. Wah and Chinese name) and the plaintiffs' delay in bringing proceedings after large-scale advertising and mass sales (525 of 536 units sold) meant that refusal of the interlocutory injunction carried the lower risk of injustice, and the…