Bonneterie Cevenole and Another v. France Mengtejiao Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCA 1101/2012 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 25 February 2014.
1. This is yet another batch of applications involving shadow companies. This time by two plaintiffs that have commenced proceedings against various defendants which have been allowed to incorporate in Hong Kong with a name similar to that of the plaintiffs or their trade names or trade marks. The object of the persons behind the defendant companies is to use the Hong Kong incorporation for the purposes of passing off and infringing the trade names or trade marks of the plaintiffs. When it comes
Cites 1 case
|
HCA 1101/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 1101 OF 2012 _______________________ BETWEEN
_______________________ HCA 1103/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 1103 OF 2012 _______________________ BETWEEN
_______________________ HCA 1104/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 1104 OF 2012 _______________________ BETWEEN
_______________________ HCA 1249/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 1249 OF 2012 _______________________ BETWEEN
_______________________ HCA 1250/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 1250 OF 2012 _______________________ BETWEEN
_______________________ HCA 1251/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 1251 OF 2012 _______________________ BETWEEN
_______________________
________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ 1.This is yet another batch of applications involving shadow companies. This time by two plaintiffs that have commenced proceedings against various defendants which have been allowed to incorporate in Hong Kong with a name similar to that of the plaintiffs or their trade names or trade marks. The object of the persons behind the defendant companies is to use the Hong Kong incorporation for the purposes of passing off and infringing the trade names or trade marks of the plaintiffs. When it comes to institute civil proceedings by the plaintiffs against each of the defendant companies, there is no one to step forward to defend or respond to the litigation concerned. It appears that the persons behind the companies have left the jurisdiction and armed with Hong Kong corporate records use them in Mainland China in furtherance of a fraud. 2.This is a typical case of a shadow company. The characteristic features of a case of this type were described by me in Power Dekor (Hong Kong) Ltd v Power Dekor Group Co Ltd, HCA 1139/2013, unreported, 9 January 2014. 3.Having considered the papers filed and the submissions for the plaintiffs, I am satisfied in each case that service of the relevant papers have been properly effected and that the defendant has defaulted in filing a notice of intention to defend and a defence. 4.Accordingly, I enter judgment for the plaintiffs against each of the defendants in HCA 1101/2012; 1103/2012, 1104/2012; 1249/2012, 1250/2012; 1251/2012 and I order the relief sought by the plaintiffs in the respective summons.
Ms Iris Mok, of ONC Lawyers, for the plaintiffs |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 1101/2012