Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Royalties

  • 17 Oct 2024

    PATRICK COX ASIA LTD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 944
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV357/2023

    Upfront Payment was sourced in Hong Kong and was revenue (not capital); the Board erred in law by failing to attribute to PCAL the Japan‑based profit‑producing operations performed by BLBG on PCAL’s behalf in respect of the Royalties Income, so the Board’s conclusion that all Royalties Income arose in Hong Kong is set aside and remitted to the Board for determination (including possible apportionment).

  • 17 Jul 2008

    RHT LTD v. HOUSELY INDUSTRIES LTD

    Citation
    RHT LTD v. HOUSELY INDUSTRIES LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA982/2006

    In absence of contrary evidence and on acceptance of plaintiff's witness, defendant repudiated the contract. Damages are assessed by expectation loss: 100,000 air-purifiers at HK$2,688 with 10% royalty and 100,000 vacuum cleaners at HK$6,522 with 10% royalty plus patent registration fees HK$464,500. Mitigation was not proved by defendant; award is granted as calculated, totaling HK$92,564,500, with costs of assessment to plaintiff.

  • 25 Jun 2008

    IWAN DIETER LJUBOJEVIC v. DéCOR TRADING CO LTD

    Citation
    IWAN DIETER LJUBOJEVIC v. DéCOR TRADING CO LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2143/2007

    On the evidence of payments, contemporaneous correspondence and the German law expert affidavit demonstrating enforceable German and EU design rights and that oral licences are binding, the court found a valid licence existed and the Plaintiff had enforceable design rights; the Defendant failed to prove any triable issue on ownership or applicable law, therefore summary judgment granted for the Plaintiff for the claimed sum, interest and costs.

  • 14 Dec 1999

    THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. EMERSON RADIO CORPORATION

    Citation
    THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. EMERSON RADIO CORPORATION
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACV3/1999

    The court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal; having proceeded on the conceded footing that the royalty agreement impliedly licensed use of the Hong Kong mark where necessary for manufacture, royalties payable in respect of goods manufactured in Hong Kong were received for the use of a trade mark in Hong Kong within s.15(1)(b) and therefore taxable to that extent; apportionment between US and Hong Kong use was unnecessary and impracticable in the stated case; territoriality of trade mark rights informs the analysis but does not defeat taxation where an implied licence to use the Hong…

  • 12 Feb 1999

    THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. EMERSON RADIO CORPORATION

    Citation
    THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. EMERSON RADIO CORPORATION
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV196/1998

    Majority held royalties are taxable under s.15(1)(b) only to the extent that they relate to the use of the trademark in Hong Kong (specifically where the mark was affixed during manufacture in Hong Kong); royalties attributable to goods manufactured and trademarked outside Hong Kong are not taxable; the payments were characterised as payments for actual use rather than an indivisible global right to use and therefore require apportionment where appropriate.

  • 28 Jul 1977

    COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. DOUGLAS HENRY HOWE

    Citation
    COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. DOUGLAS HENRY HOWE
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCIA1/1977

    The Court held the employment contract and assignment were not 'artificial' within s.61 on the facts; the taxpayer ceased carrying on authorship on his own account as from 27 July 1971 so royalties paid by OUP after that date belonged to GEC while royalties received by the taxpayer for the year ending 31 March 1971 were the taxpayer's income; an opinion formed by an Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Commissioner can validly ground action under s.61; royalties paid to an author are not necessarily sums 'for the use or right to use' within s.15(1)(b)/s.21A such that the 10% rule autom…