On 30 June 2022, the High Court handed down its reasons for judgment in Lau Tung Hoi Kent v Lau Tung Kuen  HKCFI 1921. Au Lut Chi and Griffith Cheng represented the Plaintiff. They removed the Defendant as executor of the estate in question. The Plaintiff is the younger brother of the Defendant and a beneficiary of the estate under Will.
A hearing for an opposition to trade mark application was heard before the IP Department on 27 August 2021 and the decision was handed down on 5 November 2021. The opposition concerns a registration of a trade mark “金佛水” under class 35 by an earlier trade mark “大佛水”.
Ian Chu acted for the applicant in the said hearing. In short, the IP Department was of the view that:-
- There is insufficient evidence supporting that the earlier trade mark has been widely used in Hong Kong for a long time and therefore the use of it does not make the earlier trade mark more distinctive;
- The degree of similarity between two marks is only medium; and
- While the wholesale and retailing of medicines, Chinese herbal medicine and nasal spray under the subject class 35 (“Class A Services”) are complementary to the goods covered by earlier trade mark, others including the sale of tonic food, cosmetic and skincare products and nutritious food etc (“Class B Services”) are not similar to the goods covered by the earlier trade mark.
Accordingly, the IP Department rejected the opposition to the registration of the subject trade mark under Class B Services.
For the full Statement of Reasons for Decision by the IP Department, please see https://www.ipd.gov.hk/chi/intellectual_property/trademarks/trademarks_decisions/decision/DEC304805190OP.pdf or contact our Ian Chu.
Recently, the Hong Kong courts have considered two important issues for lenders relating to jurisdiction clauses in finance documents:
1. Should the Hong Kong courts dismiss a winding up or bankruptcy petition if the relevant finance document is subject to an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) in favour of a foreign court?
2. Will the Hong Kong courts give effect to asymmetric jurisdiction clauses?
There have been two recent decisions of the Supreme Court in England which it would be useful for any Hong Kong practitioner to consider when dealing with the fundamental questions of (1) whether the relationship is one to which vicarious liability principles apply and (2) whether, even if it is such a relationship, the employee’s wrongdoing is such that liability should attach to the employer.
- Recent Cases
- 14 April 2020
The Court of Appeal upholds the principle of requiring a warrant to access contents of a mobile phone whilst clarifying warrantless searches can only be conducted with reference to the concept of “reasonable practicability” as submitted by Dr Gerard McCoy QC, SC, and Albert N B Wong (for the 2nd Interested Party).
Timothy Harry appeared in Popely v Popely EWHC 667 (Ch), where the High Court in England was tasked to consider whether to make a third party costs order against someone who was not a party to the proceedings but who it was said was the driving force behind the litigation, which involved allegations of fraudulent misappropriation. The equivalent provisions in Hong Kong are section 52A(2)of the High Court Ordinance(Cap.4) and RHC O.62, r 6A. The Court made the Order for costs.
- Recent Cases
- 28 March 2020