Schneider Electric Sa and Another v. Shinaide Electrical Asia & Pacific Ltd

Read the full judgment text of HCA 2280/2013 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 26 March 2014.

1. This is yet another batch of applications involving shadow companies. The plaintiff has commenced proceedings against various defendants which have been allowed to incorporate in Hong Kong with a name similar to that of the plaintiff or its trade names or trade marks in English or Chinese. 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 plaintiff. When it comes t

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCA 2280/2013
Court
High Court CFI
Date26 Mar 2014
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 2280/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2280 OF2013

_________________

BETWEEN

  SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SA 1st Plaintiff
  SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC (HK) LIMITED 2nd Plaintiff
  and
  SHINAIDE ELECTRICAL ASIA & PACIFIC LIMITED
(施耐德電氣(亞太)有限公司)
Defendant

_________________

HCA 2281/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2281 OF2013

_________________

BETWEEN

  SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SA 1st Plaintiff
  SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC (HK) LIMITED 2nd Plaintiff
  and
  SHINAIDE INTELLIGENCE ELECTRIC LIMITED
(施耐德智能電氣有限公司)
Defendant

_________________

HCA 2282/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2282 OF2013

_________________

BETWEEN

  SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SA 1st Plaintiff
  SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC (HK) LIMITED 2nd Plaintiff
  and
  LOW-VOLTAGE APPARATUS (HK) HOLDINGS CO LIMITED
(施耐德低壓電氣(香港)股份有限公司)
Defendant

_________________

Before: Hon Zervos J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 26 March 2014
Date of Judgment: 26 March 2014

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.This is yet another batch of applications involving shadow companies. The plaintiff has commenced proceedings against various defendants which have been allowed to incorporate in Hong Kong with a name similar to that of the plaintiff or its trade names or trade marks in English or Chinese. 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 plaintiff. When it comes to institute civil proceedings by the plaintiff against each of the defendant companies, there is no response to the litigation concerned. It appears that the persons behind the companies have left the jurisdiction and armed with the Hong Kong company and the incorporation records use them in Mainland China in furtherance of a fraud by trade mark infringement and passing off.

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 plaintiff, I am satisfied in each case that service of the relevant papers has 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 plaintiff against each of the defendants in HCA 2280/2013; 2281/2013 and 2282/2013 and I order the relief sought by the plaintiff in the respective summons.

(Kevin Zervos)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Mr Kenny Cheung, of Baker & McKenzie, for the plaintiff