PANDORA A/S AND ANOTHER v. GLAMULET INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

HCA 2941/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2941 OF 2015

____________

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  The only dispute is the continuation in the meantime of paragraphs 2 to 4 of the ex parte IP injunction.

2.  Paragraphs 2 and 3 require the 1st defendant to stop all sales activities and change the name of the website.  There are in fact steps that should be taken pursuant to paragraph 1 of the order.  I cannot see any merit in the objection.

3.  Pursuant to paragraph 1 of that order, the 1st defendant cannot deal with the infringing items.  Paragraph 4 is only on the safe custody.  If the 1st defendant cannot make use of the items, it creates no extra prejudice to it by requiring it to deliver them to the plaintiff for safe custody.  The only extra work is to gather the items into a box or boxes and send them over.  To allow the plaintiff having safe custody of the items will also remove the chance of future dispute that the defendant may have breached paragraph 1 by dealing with these items contrary to paragraph 1.  This is, of course, on the assumption that no further infringing items will come into the custody or possession of the 1st defendant, but if there should be further infringing items coming into its possession, it should likewise hand them over to the plaintiff for safe custody to avoid any argument of breach of paragraph 1 of the order.

4.  For these reasons, I would continue paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the ex parte injunction until the disposal of the summons for continuation.  I do not think the argument of delay can defeat the continuation of these paragraphs on the facts of this case.

5.  The email address in paragraph 2(f)(v) of the ex parte substituted service order dated 10 December be deleted.