MIXUE GROUP v. MIXUEBINGCHENG DRINK (HK) LTD

HCIP 55/2025,
HCIP 56/2025,
HCIP 57/2025,
HCIP 58/2025,
HCIP 60/2025 &
HCIP 61/2025

[2025] HKCFI 6396

HCIP 55/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROCEEDINGS NO. 55 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

AND 

HCIP 56/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROCEEDINGS NO. 56 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

AND 

HCIP 57/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROCEEDINGS NO. 57 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

AND 

HCIP 58/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROCEEDINGS NO. 58 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

AND 

HCIP 60/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROCEEDINGS NO. 60 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

AND 

HCIP 61/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROCEEDINGS NO. 61 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.  I have before me a number of applications for default judgment under O.19, r.7 of the Rules of High Court, Cap. 4A (“RHC”)  by Mixue Group, the Plaintiff (“P”), against the following Defendants (collectively, “Ds”):

(1)  Mixuebingcheng Drink (HK)  Limited in HCIP 55/2025;

(2)  Tianjin Honey Snow Ice City Food Limited in HCIP 56/2025;

(3)  Honey Snow Ice City Hong Kong Style Beverage Co Limited in HCIP 57/2025;

(4)  Mixuebingcheng Hong Kong Biotechnology Limited in HCIP 58/2025;

(5)  Guangzhou Mixuebingcheng Beverages Limited in HCIP 60/2025; and

(6)  Michelle Ice City (Hong Kong)  Industrial Co. Limited in HCIP 61/2025.

2.  By Summons dated 14 October 2025 in each of the above actions (collectively, “P’s Summonses”), P seeks an injunction to restrain each of the Defendant (“D”)  whether acting by itself, its directors, officers, servants, agents, or employees or any of them or otherwise howsoever, from continuing the use of its current registered Chinese name (and English name in the cases of HCIP 55/2025, HCIP 58/2025 and HCIP 60/2025)  and costs.

3.  P has issued a Writ of Summons endorsed with a Statement of Claim (“the Writ”)  against each of D in these actions. Essentially, it is pleaded that:

(1)  P is and was at all material times a company incorporated in the PRC on 30 April 2008 and registered in Hong Kong as a non-Hong Kong company.  P is also listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange with stock code 2097.HK;

(2)  Since 1999, P and its predecessor(s)  in title had been operating a business in the beverage and refreshments industry, in particular in the making of freshly-made fruit drinks, tea drinks and ice-cream under the name and registered mark “蜜雪冰城”;

(3)  D is a private company limited by shares incorporated in Hong Kong;

(4)  P presently maintains an extensive international presence operating more than 40,000 stores worldwide including a significant overseas footprint of over 4,800 stores.  P’s retail network spans Hong Kong, the PRC, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Laos, Australia, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Singapore and South Korea.  The gross merchandise value generated through P’s store network amounted to approximately RMB 22.8B, RMB30.7B, RMB 47.8B and RMB 44.9B in 2021, 2022, 2023, and the 9 months ended 30 September 2024 respectively;

(5)  P extensively uses and prominently displays the words “蜜雪” and “蜜雪冰城” and their respective English transliteration “Mixue” and “Mi Xue Bing Cheng” (“Trade Name”)  in operating its business;

(6)  P (and its predecessor(s)  in title)  first applied for the registration of the trade mark “蜜雪冰城” in the PRC on 31 March 2009 which was granted on 7 October 2010 and has since registered various trademarks comprising different designs and arrangements of “蜜雪冰城” and its English transliteration “Mixue” in the PRC, Hong Kong and other jurisdictions worldwide;

(7)  P’s Trade Name and distinctive trademarks have been continuously and extensively used by P and its affiliated entities in commercial operations across multiple jurisdictions since 1999.  P also invested heavily in marketing campaigns both online and offline to promote the Trade Name.  Through years of substantial investment in marketing and advertisements, P’s Trade Name and trademarks have become instantly recognizable to consumers such that they exclusively denote P’s business;

(8)  As a consequence of the above, P has acquired a substantial reputation and goodwill in the words “蜜雪冰城” and “Mixue” and such words are of special importance to P’s business and reputation;

(9)  D is liable to P for passing off;

(10)  D exhibits classic characteristics of a “shadow company” including: (a) its Chinese name is confusingly similar and/or nearly identical to the name or mark of P; (b) its sole director and sole shareholder is an individual from the PRC; and (c) its registered office address is the same of its company secretary (or former company secretary);

(11)  The Chinese name of D (and English name in the cases of HCIP 55/2025, HCIP 58/2025 and HCIP 60/2025)  is calculated to lead and/or has led to:

(a)  D being confused with P; and

(b)  Confusion amongst members of the public dealing with D in the belief they are dealing with P contrary to the fact;

(12)  By reason of the aforesaid, P has suffered damages and will suffer further damage in the future unless D’s acts of infringements are restrained;

(13)  P’s solicitors have issued a cease-and-desist letter to D demanding D to sign and return an undertaking to, amongst other things, effect a change of D’s company name within 1 month but D has failed to respond or change its name; and

(14)  P claims various injunctive relief, inquiry or account together with interests and costs.

4.  Notwithstanding service of the Writ, Ds have not filed any Acknowledgment of Service nor defence.

5.  Ds have not appeared at today’s hearing.  Given that I am satisfied from the affirmations of service that Ds have been served P’s Summonses and other relevant documents, and have never participated in these proceedings notwithstanding service of the Writ, I am of the view that it is expedient to proceed with the hearing of P’s Summonses in Ds’ absence under O.32, r.5 of RHC.

6.  The applicable principles for default judgment under O.19, r.7 of RHC are well-settled.  The power to grant judgment under O.19, r.7 is discretionary.  The court is required to scrutinize whether the matters pleaded in the Statement of Claim entitle the plaintiff to the judgment sought.  The court’s decision is made on the basis of pleaded facts, rather than on evidence.  This is because where no defence is filed, the court will assume that the Statement of Claim has been impliedly admitted.  See Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2026, Vol.1, §§19/2/1, 19/7/11 and 19/7/14.

7.  As for injunctive relief, it is now well-established that the court has jurisdiction to grant injunctions in default judgment: see Biostime International Investment Ltd v France Heson Paper (Hong Kong)  Co Ltd [2015] 2 HKLRD 658, §§12-13 per DHCJ Paul Lam SC and Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2026, Vol.1, §19/7/17.

8.  As for the law of passing off, it is also well established there are three essential elements:

(1)  That the plaintiff enjoys reputation and goodwill in the name, mark or indicia which it wishes to prevent the defendant from using;

(2)  That the defendant has made a representation which was likely to lead members of the public to believe that his business, goods or services are the business, goods or services of the plaintiff; and

(3)  That the plaintiff was suffering and was likely to suffer damage by reason of the erroneous belief engendered by the defendant’s misrepresentation.

See: Oriental Food Industries Sdn Bhd v Sze Hing Loong Development Ltd (unrep)  HCA 2094/2011, 12 February 2015 at §30 per DHCJ B Chu (as she then was).

9.  On the facts as pleaded in the Statement of Claim in each of these actions, which in default of defence are assumed to be impliedly admitted, I am satisfied that P is entitled to an injunction to restrain Ds from committing passing off by using their current registered Chinese name (and English name in the cases of HCIP 55/2025, HCIP 58/2025 and HCIP 60/2025).  In particular, I am satisfied that: (a) P enjoys a goodwill or reputation in the name of “Mixue” and “蜜雪冰城”; (b) by using the company name containing the words “Mixue” and “蜜雪”, Ds have made a representation which is likely to lead members of the public to believe that Ds’ business, goods or services are the business, goods or services of or related to P; and (c) P will suffer damage by reason of that erroneous belief engendered by Ds’ misrepresentations.

10.  I therefore make an order in terms of P’s Summonses with costs of this action (including this application)  against Ds as summarily assessed by me.