PARADOX SECURITY SYSTEMS LTD. v. PROCEEDING ENGINEERING CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

HCA 266/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 266 OF 2003

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. I have a summons for various injunctive relief before me today. The parties are in agreement that directions should be given for the hearing of the summons. Those directions are not really controversial. The parties are also in agreement that a pro tempore injunction should be granted in the meantime, basically to hold the respective positions of the parties.

2. Counsel have very sensibly agreed on most of the terms of the pro tempore order pending the full hearing of the inter partes summons, with the exception of paragraph 1(b).

3. Having heard counsel's arguments, I am not persuaded that paragraph 1(b) is required as part of the pro tempore injunction. Ms Tsang, acting for the Plaintiff, has not been able to supply any authority in support of 1(b) on the ground that the products listed in paragraph 1(b) involve the infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademark. In any event, Ms Tsang very wisely accepted that on the evidence filed, there is no evidence of any confusion between the products referred to in paragraph 1(b) in the condition that they are sold in the market and the products of the Plaintiff bearing the Plaintiff's mark. So in those circumstances, I am not prepared to make an order in terms of 1(b).

4. I should stress that my ruling on 1(b) is based on the evidence presented before me today. It should not prevent the Plaintiff from adducing further evidence in relation to the subject matter of 1(b) either at the full hearing or in the meantime, if such evidence of confusion is forthcoming.

5. As I said, apart from 1(b), counsel are basically in agreement relating to the terms of the pro tempore injunction. I make an order in terms of paragraph 1 of the revised draft order handed up to me this morning with the following amendments relating to 1(d), namely "within Hong Kong" should be added after "the Plaintiff" in the 1st line as well as "not to use" in the 6th line. And of course, paragraph 1(b) should be deleted from the revised draft order.

6. In relation to the directions, in replacement of paragraphs 2 to 7 of the revised draft order, I would give the following directions:

(2) leave to the Defendants to file and serve evidence in opposition within 42 days from the date hereof;

(3) leave to the Plaintiff to file and serve evidence in reply within 14 days thereafter;

(4) no further evidence be filed without leave of the Court;

(5) hearing of the Plaintiff's summons dated 21 January 2003 be adjourned to a date to be fixed (not earlier than 30 March 2003), estimated time: 1 day; an early date be given, if possible;

(6) liberty to apply.

7. Finally, I reserve the question of costs.