Stuttgart Motors Holdings Ltd v. Yiu Chi Ho t/a Motor Car Co
Read the full judgment text of DCCJ 5308/2005 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 23 January 2006.
1. The plaintiff was a motor car dealer. The defendant opened a firm whose name and business were rather similar to the plaintiff’s. The plaintiff sought an injunction and incidental reliefs against the defendant. The defendant was absent in the proceedings. The facts are rather straightforward.
|
DCCJ 5308/2005 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CIVIL ACTION NO. 5308 OF 2005 ____________________ BETWEEN
Coram: Deputy District Judge E. Yip in Chambers Date of Hearing: 20 January 2006 Date of Decision: 23 January 2006 __________________________ REASONS FOR DECISION __________________________ 1.The plaintiff was a motor car dealer. The defendant opened a firm whose name and business were rather similar to the plaintiff’s. The plaintiff sought an injunction and incidental reliefs against the defendant. The defendant was absent in the proceedings. The facts are rather straightforward. 2.On 8 November 2002, the plaintiff was incorporated in Hong Kong. Since then, it has carried on the business of selling new cars and used cars in mint condition. It has established a substantial goodwill and reputation in the field. It has 4 showrooms and a large clientele. It has been advertising and making extensive use of the trade name匯駿汽車. 3.On 14 September 2004, the defendant obtained a business registration. Since then, it has carried on the business of selling used cars in its showroom in Cheung Sha Wan. It has been advertising its business in the name of匯駿汽車 in a car-dealing magazine and newpapers in Hong Kong, and a website. It has also been using the name of匯駿汽車 in its business papers for clients. 4.On 27 October 2005, the plaintiff’s solicitors despatched, by ordinary post and registered post respectively, a letter of service, a Writ of Summons with General Indorsement, and the accompanying forms to the defendant’s address. None of the documents were returned. 5.On 6 January 2006, the plaintiff’s solicitors despatched, by ordinary post, a letter of service, and a summons (returnable on 20 January 2006) seeking in summary [see p. 37 – 38 for the details]:
6.On 20 January 2006, the defendant was absent in Court. 7.I agree with plaintiff’s counsel’s submission on the calculated confusion and adverse effects on the plaintiff’s business, goodwill and reputation. The reliefs sought were appropriate. I grant the reliefs (as amended in red on 20 January 2006 in Court) on the original Summons. 8.The plaintiff’s counsel asks for costs, with certificate for counsel, based on gross sum assessment. This will certainly save costs. I assess the gross sum to be $38,000 in total. I made an order nisi for costs of this amount to the plaintiff. The order shall become absolute 14 days from today. Dated this 23 January 2006
Mr. Lawrence Hui C. L., instructed by M/s Herman H. M. Hui and Co., for the Plaintiff Defendant: Yiu Chi Ho, in person, absent |