Chrome Hearts Llc and Another v. Global Ventures Group Ltd Formerly Known As Chrome World Jp Ltd and Others

HCIP 47/2024

[2026] HKCFI 2782

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROCEEDINGS NO 47 OF 2024

________________________

BETWEEN

________________

________________________

DECISION
ON
COSTS

________________________

Introduction

1.The background relating to these proceedings is set out in my decision dated 17 April 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 2374) (the “Decision”).

2.Pursuant to the directions under paragraphs 77 and 78 of the Decision, the parties have lodged submissions on costs, which I have considered.

3.This is my decision on costs[1].

Costs between the Plaintiff and the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants

4.By letter dated 10 March 2026, the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants made it clear that they effectively agreed to all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs, save and except the injunction in respect of “any other intellectual property rights owned by the Plaintiff”.

5.For the reasons explained in paragraph 29 of my Decision, it was wrong in principle for the Plaintiffs to insist on seeking an injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing “any other intellectual property rights” that were neither pleaded nor identified.

6.In my view, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover the costs that were incurred after 10 March 2026.

7.Accordingly, I order that the costs of the action against the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants, up to 10 March 2026, be paid by the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants to the Plaintiffs on an indemnity basis, to be taxed if not agreed.

8.However, this costs order is subject to the following. There is no reason why the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants should not pay the Plaintiffs’ costs in respect of their Amendment Application (which was taken out on 30 March 2026). Hence, insofar as the costs in relation to the Amendment Application as between the Plaintiffs and the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants are concerned, I order that the same be paid by the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants to the Plaintiffs, to be taxed if not agreed.

9.For the avoidance of doubt, it should be pointed out that the Plaintiffs’ application to join the 5^th Defendant and to consequentially re-amend the amended statement of claim under the summons dated 13 March 2026 (the “Joinder Application”) concerned the 5^th Defendant and had nothing to do with the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants. Thus, they should not be liable for the Plaintiffs’ costs in respect thereof.

Costs between the Plaintiffs and the 3^rd Defendant

10.As pointed out in paragraph 54(2) of the Decision, Mr Philips Wong (for the Defendants) fairly accepted that the 3^rd Defendant shall pay the Plaintiffs’ costs prior to 30 March 2026 (ie the date when the Defendants took out the Amendment Application).

11.As regards the costs incurred after 30 March 2026, my views are as follows.

12.I recognize that there is force in Mr Philips Wong’s contention that upon perusing the 3^rd and 5^th Defendants’ affirmations filed on 16 February 2026 and the proposed amendments under Amendment Application taken out on 30 March 2026, the Plaintiffs should not have continued to prosecute the O14 Summons against the 3^rd Defendant. Evidently, the Plaintiffs’ attempt to seek summary judgment against the 3^rd Defendant had failed.

13.However: -

(1) It appears to me that there is room to criticize the 3^rd Defendant’s conduct. As pointed out in paragraphs 42 and 45(7) of the Decision, the 3^rd Defendant did not exercise a sufficient degree of caution in dealing with the joint defence, and it can be said that she was careless.

(2) Further, whilst I am of the view that the 3^rd Defendant’s new substantive case and explanations are arguable, the question of whether the Defendant told the truth to the court is a matter to be determined at trial. I am not of the view that it was entirely unreasonable for the Plaintiffs to take issue with certain aspects of the 3^rd Defendant’s new substantive case and explanations.

14.Having considered the matter in the round, I am of the view that the fair costs order to make is as follows: -

(1) The 3^rd Defendant shall pay the Plaintiffs’ costs in respect of the O14 Summons and the Amendment Summons, up to 30 March 2026, in any event, to be taxed if not agreed.

(2) The costs in respect of the O14 Summons after 30 March 2026 and the Amendment Summons after 30 March 2026 be to the 3^rd Defendant in the cause[2] (with certificate for 2 counsel[3]).

Costs between the Plaintiffs and the 5^th Defendant

15.All along, the 5^th Defendant admitted liability. As pointed out in paragraph 21 of the Decision, in his affirmation filed on 16 February 2026, the 5^th Defendant confirmed that he agreed to be joined as an additional defendant and that he agreed to the relief as agreed to by the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants.

16.The 5^th Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiffs’ costs in respect of the Joinder Application under the summons dated 13 March 2026. This was a fair concession. Without joining the 5^th Defendant and making consequential amendments to the amended statement of claim, the Plaintiffs could not have entered judgment against the 5^th Defendant.

17.However, it appears to me that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover the costs in respect of the O14 Summons from the 5^th Defendant. In this connection, it should be pointed out that: -

(1) As the 5^th Defendant had admitted liability all along, the judgment against him was entered by consent, not pursuant to the O14 Summons.

(2) Indeed, as pointed out by Mr Philips Wong in his skeleton submissions filed for the hearing on 16 April 2026, since the 5^th Defendant (who admitted liability) had not filed a notice of intention to defend, the Plaintiffs were not even entitled to pursue the O14 Summons against the 5^th Defendant: see Order 14, rule 1(1).

18.In the premises, I will order that the costs of the action against the 5^th Defendant, including the Joinder Application but excluding the O14 Summons, be paid by the 5^th Defendant to the Plaintiffs on an indemnity basis, to be taxed if not agreed.

Other Matters

19.I thank Mr Douglas Clark, Mr Philips B.F. Wong, and Mr William Tse for their helpful assistance.

Mr Douglas Clark, of M/s Tanner De Witt for the 1^st and 2^nd Plaintiffs

Mr Philips B F Wong and Mr William Tse, instructed by M/s CPH Legal for the 1^st to 3^rd and 5^th Defendants