Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Originality

Legal area

Court

5 May 2026

SKY KING MACHINERY ENGINEERING LTD v. CHINA HARBOUR ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 816
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV211/2023

Leave to appeal granted only on Question 3 (whether a work of architecture requires artistic character to qualify as an artistic work under the Copyright Ordinance) because that was a pure question of law of general/public importance and was argued below; leave was refused on Questions 1, 2 and 4 because they raised new points not argued before the Recorder or Court of Appeal, amounted to impermissible challenges to concurrent findings of fact, did not arise on the facts as found, or were not reasonably arguable.
3 Dec 2024

VOGEL INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD v. VOGELSITZE GMBH AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3482
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP56/2023

The strike‑out applications were refused because the Statement of Claim, though ambiguous, disclosed an arguable case that the Design Drawings may be original and protectable given skill and labour in their preparation; the correct remedy was to grant the plaintiff general leave to amend its pleadings to clarify whether the claim is based on the drawings or the design per se, and to permit the 1st and 3rd Defendants to reapply to strike out if the amended pleadings remain unarguable.
9 Jun 2023

SKY KING MACHINERY ENGINEERING LTD v. CHINA HARBOR ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1516
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP45/2019

The court found on the evidence that the SF 2003 Plans originated from TP Wong and were digitised by Lambeth acting as scribe; the SF 2003 Plans and aspects of the as-built installation met the low threshold of originality; the installation qualified as a 'work of architecture' under Cap.528 s5; copyright vested in the Plaintiff by virtue of employment/subcontract arrangements; the SF 2005 Plans and the Defendant's MS Plans and HZMB installation reproduced substantial and qualitatively important, visually significant parts of the SF 2003 Plans and Installation, therefore the Defendant infring…
24 May 2016

GLOBAL MARKETING ENTERPRISE (GME) LTD AND ANOTHER v. BLUE BOX INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

GLOBAL MARKETING ENTERPRISE (GME) LTD AND ANOTHER v. BLUE BOX INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1053/2015

Triable issues exist as to subsistence of copyright in the claimed drawings, ownership of the copyright (possible competing claim by GolosWeisman Design and unclear employment/commission status), and whether the defendant independently created its product or copied a substantial part; therefore summary judgment was inappropriate and the summons is dismissed so the matters proceed to trial; costs ordered nisi in favour of the defendant on party and party basis.
11 Mar 2015

SKY KING MACHINERY ENGINEERING LTD v. CHUN WO CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SKY KING MACHINERY ENGINEERING LTD v. CHUN WO CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1918/2013

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because, although the court accepted the Plans were original and that the Plaintiff had rebutted the copyright notice presumption of Gammon's ownership, there remained triable issues as to whether the Defendants had authorized the copying; the evidence (general contract specifications, subcontracting and approval rights) was insufficient at summary stage to conclude authorization as a matter of law.
10 Mar 2009

LOYAL TECHNOLOGY CO LTD v. ARTLIGHT ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LOYAL TECHNOLOGY CO LTD v. ARTLIGHT ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV273/2008

The Court allowed the defendants' appeal and dismissed the action for want of prosecution because the plaintiff had prosecuted the action in a half‑hearted and dilatory manner, there was inordinate and inexcusable delay and that delay had caused severe prejudice (loss of witnesses and evidence) such that a fair trial was no longer possible; the judge below erred in concluding no prejudice existed.
22 Dec 2006

TAI SHING DIARY LTD v. MAERSK HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TAI SHING DIARY LTD v. MAERSK HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2667/2004

The court found on the s121 affirmation and comparison of works that the plaintiff's works met the low originality threshold and that the 2004 Maersk diary was a substantial reproduction constituting infringement; the 3rd defendant was properly liable as a joint tortfeasor given his role in soliciting and procuring the infringing production; only a triable issue remained as to the 1st defendant's subjective and objective knowledge for damages under s108(1), therefore summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff against all defendants with leave for the 1st defendant to defend damages and an…
1 Dec 2006

TOY MAJOR TRADING CO LTD v. HANG SHUN PLASTIC TOYS LTD

Citation

TOY MAJOR TRADING CO LTD v. HANG SHUN PLASTIC TOYS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2516/2005

The court found the artistic works were original, that Hang Shun's products were very substantial reproductions of Toy Major's drawings and clay sculptures based on direct comparison, and that Hang Shun had knowledge or reason to believe they were dealing in infringing copies (letter, overwhelming similarities, prior copying); there were no triable issues and summary judgment was appropriate for Toy Major.
22 Jul 2004

GUANGZHOU GREEN-ENHAN BIO-ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. GREEN POWER HEALTH PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

GUANGZHOU GREEN-ENHAN BIO-ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. GREEN POWER HEALTH PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4651/2002

Because the proposed amendments and documents were sought at a very late stage without satisfactory explanation, raised new substantive lines of defence that would unfairly prejudice and materially delay the Plaintiffs and the trial, the court exercised its discretion to refuse leave to re-re-amend the Defence and to exclude the late evidence relating to the Japanese magazine, packaging and newspaper advertisements; limited late evidence (drawings TSK-2 and TSK-3) was admitted where it merely completed existing evidence and would not cause serious prejudice.
22 Jul 2004

GUANGZHOU GREEN-ENHAN BIO-ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. GREEN POWER HEALTH PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

GUANGZHOU GREEN-ENHAN BIO-ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. GREEN POWER HEALTH PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP74/2004

The court refused leave to re-amend the Defence and to admit late evidence relating to the Japanese magazine, Japanese packaging and the two newspaper advertisements because the applications were made very late with unsatisfactory explanations, the materials were in the defendants' possession or discoverable earlier, admission would unfairly prejudice and delay the plaintiffs and the relevance was marginal or collateral; the court granted limited leave to adduce the drawings TSK-2 and TSK-3 as they completed existing evidence and would not cause serious prejudice, subject to filing supplement…