VANUATU FREIGHT FORWARDING (H.K.) LTD. AND OTHERS v. VANUATU INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD. AND ANOTHER

HCA 2029/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2029 OF 2002

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

1. By this application the plaintiffs seek the relief as set out in summons dated the 28th May 2002. Mr. Yan, counsel for the plaintiffs, has taken me through the evidence in this case. The facts as established in the affidavit evidence show that the plaintiffs have been using the name "Vanuatu" and "美圖" transliterated as "Mei To" at least since 1989. I am satisfied on the evidence that the plaintiffs have acquired a substantial reputation in "Vanuatu" and "美圖". I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have established a reputation in its logo as well as disclosed in the evidence. They are in the business of, inter alia, freight forwarding and ocean freight forwarding business.

2. The 2nd defendant was the general manager of branch offices of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs in Shanghai which were established in about 1995. She was recently dismissed in March of this year due to disagreements between her and the plaintiffs. In early April 2002 the plaintiffs discovered that the 1st defendant has been trading in a freight forwarding business and has been using documents incorporating the names "Vanuatu" and "美圖" in those documents. The evidence shows clearly that there have been acts of confusion between the plaintiffs' customers because of the use of these names by the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs have discovered that it was the 2nd defendant who had set up the 1st defendant, she holding a majority shareholding in the company as well as being one of the two directors.

3. The plaintiffs have satisfied me that it has a strong case on the merits so that I should grant the plaintiffs the mandatory injunction as well as the prohibitory injunction sought in the summons. I am satisfied that unless the relief is granted to the plaintiffs the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable damage so that interlocutory relief ought to be granted to the plaintiffs on their cross-undertaking in damages.