Leung Kam Tong and Another v. Italy Leone Internaional Group (Asia) Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 2415/2005 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 6 December 2005.
1. Two applications lie before me. There is an originating motion which was filed on 5 November 2005, which seeks to appeal against the decision of Trade Marks Registrar Ng dated 5 August 2005 when she held that the appellant Madam Leung’s opposition to the registration of the trade mark by the respondent Italy Leone International Group (Asia) Limited was dismissed.
|
HCMP2415/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2415 OF 2005 --------------------- BETWEEN
---------------------- Deputy High Court Judge Mayo in Court Date of Hearing : 6 December 2005 Date of Judgment : 6 December 2005 ------------------------- J U D G M E N T ------------------------- 1.Two applications lie before me. There is an originating motion which was filed on 5 November 2005, which seeks to appeal against the decision of Trade Marks Registrar Ng dated 5 August 2005 when she held that the appellant Madam Leung’s opposition to the registration of the trade mark by the respondent Italy Leone International Group (Asia) Limited was dismissed. 2.The 2nd application which is a summons filed on 2 December 2005 is in effect an appeal against the determination made by Registrar Ng that additional evidence could not be filed during the hearing before her. Leave is now sought by Ms Leung to introduce this additional evidence. 3.No application for leave to lodge the originating motion has ever been made. The time limit for filing the application is 28 days. See Order 55 of the Rules of the High Court. It will be appreciated that this application is out of time. 4.The only explanation given by Ms Leung for the delay is that she did not receive satisfactory legal advice from the solicitors who were representing her when she was making the original opposition before Registrar Ng. She also says that it took time to get together the various invoices required. 5.It hardly needs to be said that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. So far as the additional evidence is concerned, Registrar Ng gave very detailed reasons why the additional evidence could not be filed and stated that even if it had been accepted, it would not have materially added to the case the opponent was advancing. 6.The Registrar of Trade Marks, very helpfully, provided me with a copy of Registrar Ng’s decision and it is apparent to me that even if leave was given to proceed with the originating motion it would have very little prospect of success. 7.Having regard to all of the circumstances relating to these applications, I decline to grant the leave which is sought and I dismiss the originating motion. 8.I am grateful that Mr Kwan, SGC, who represented the Trade Mark Registrar for the assistance he has given me. I will hear the parties on costs.
Mr Francis Kwan, SGC of Department of Justice, for Trade Marks Registry, Intellectual Property Department The Appellant, in person Wilstar International (Group) Ltd, agents for the Respondent |