Read the full judgment text of HCMA 492/2011 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 3 December 2013.
1. The first appellant (“A1”) was charged with “possession for sale or for any purpose of trade or manufacture goods to which a forged trade mark was applied”, contrary to section 9(2) as read with section 18(1) of the Trade Description Ordinance, Cap 362. The second appellant (“A2”) was summonsed for the same offence. As the two cases arose out of the same incident they were tried together.
Cited by 5 cases · Cites 3 cases