Pandora a/S and Another v. Glamulet International Ltd and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCA 2941/2015 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 18 December 2015.

1. The only dispute is the continuation in the meantime of paragraphs 2 to 4 of the ex parte IP injunction.

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCA 2941/2015
Court
High Court CFI
Date18 Dec 2015
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 2941/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2941 OF 2015

____________

BETWEEN
  PANDORA A/S 1st Plaintiff
  PANDORA JEWELRY ASIA-PACIFIC LIMITED 2nd Plaintiff
  and  
  GLAMULET INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 1st Defendant
  MARKSUN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 2nd Defendant
  TOPNETS GROUP LIMITED 3rd Defendant
  上海加酷貿易有限公司 4th Defendant
  SHEN LIAN PING (沈蓮萍) 5th Defendant
  WENG XIAO HUI (翁曉輝) 6th Defendant

____________

Before: Hon L Chan J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 18 December 2015
Date of Decision: 18 December 2015

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.The only dispute is the continuation in the meantime of paragraphs 2 to 4 of the ex parte IP injunction.

2.Paragraphs 2 and 3 require the 1st defendant to stop all sales activities and change the name of the website.  There are in fact steps that should be taken pursuant to paragraph 1 of the order.  I cannot see any merit in the objection.

3.Pursuant to paragraph 1 of that order, the 1st defendant cannot deal with the infringing items.  Paragraph 4 is only on the safe custody.  If the 1st defendant cannot make use of the items, it creates no extra prejudice to it by requiring it to deliver them to the plaintiff for safe custody.  The only extra work is to gather the items into a box or boxes and send them over.  To allow the plaintiff having safe custody of the items will also remove the chance of future dispute that the defendant may have breached paragraph 1 by dealing with these items contrary to paragraph 1.  This is, of course, on the assumption that no further infringing items will come into the custody or possession of the 1st defendant, but if there should be further infringing items coming into its possession, it should likewise hand them over to the plaintiff for safe custody to avoid any argument of breach of paragraph 1 of the order.

4.For these reasons, I would continue paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the ex parte injunction until the disposal of the summons for continuation.  I do not think the argument of delay can defeat the continuation of these paragraphs on the facts of this case.

5.The email address in paragraph 2(f)(v) of the ex parte substituted service order dated 10 December be deleted.

  (Louis Chan)
  Judge of the Court of First Instance
  High Court

Mr Douglas Clark, instructed by Hogan Lovells, for the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs

Mr Patrick Siu, instructed by ONC Lawyers, for the 1st defendant

The 2nd to 6th defendants, in person, were not represented and did not appear

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCA 2941/2015