MAN POWER MOTORS COMPANY LTD v. TAI PING MOTOR TRADING CO. LTD AND ANOTHER

HCIP 5/2023

[2025] HKCFI 1593

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROCEEDINGS NO. 5 OF 2023

________________________

________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.  This is a claim by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for copyright infringement in respect of the design of the component parts of aluminium trunk body.

2.  Shortly before the pre-trial review held on 14 January 2025, the then Defendants’ solicitors applied for and obtained an order to cease to be the solicitors acting for the Defendants.

3.  The Defendants did not attend the pre-trial review. As a result, I gave an order for the trial to take place at an earlier date, and I also made an order that, provided that the Plaintiff’s witnesses confirm the accuracy of the contents of the witness statements by way of affidavits, such witness statements shall be admitted as evidence on paper at trial without the need of calling such witnesses to give evidence. The order also included a direction to the effect that witness statements filed and served by the Defendants shall be excluded and not form part of the evidence at the trial.

4.  In this earlier trial, the Defendants also do not appear and so the Plaintiff proceeds to prove the case against the Defendants.

5.  Having perused the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff is the owner of the copyright subsisting in all the concept drawings, mould drawings and production drawings relied on by the Plaintiff. Further, the Plaintiff has made a section 121 affirmation to prove the Plaintiff’s ownership of the relevant copyright drawings.

6.  I have also made a comparison of the Plaintiff’s products produced pursuant to the Plaintiff’s design drawings and the Defendants’ component parts. I am satisfied that there are substantial similarities between the two and this is a clear case of copying or copyright infringement on the part of the Defendants.

7.  In the Defence filed by the Defendants, the Defendants have basically raised two issues. First, they claimed that 劉慶文 (“Lau”), the alleged designer, did not create the Mould Design Drawings (as defined in the Amended Statement of Claim) “B1” to “B8” in the course of his employment with Smart Vehicle which, according to the Plaintiff, was a related company of the Plaintiff in the same group. Second, they claimed that Lau invented the subject designs and the said designs were registered as a short-term patent in Hong Kong. However, these two defences certainly have no merit. The Plaintiff has adduced unchallenged evidence to prove that Lau created the said works in the course of his employment with Smart Vehicle. In respect of the second issue, Lau fundamentally had no right to the alleged invention. In any event, the short-term patent relied on by the Defendants has already been revoked.

8.  Having perused the evidence, the Plaintiff has an overwhelming case on the ownership of the relevant copyright drawings. Further, it is a clear case of copying on the part of the Defendants when they produced the component parts. Hence, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has proved the case against the Defendants for the claim of copyright infringement, and I will therefore grant the order as sought by the Plaintiff in the skeleton submissions.

9.  Finally, for the summary assessment of costs, the Plaintiff has prepared a Statement of Costs claiming for a sum of about $1,200,000. The statement has been served on the Defendants. In order to avoid the costs associated with the taxation proceedings, I agree that this is an appropriate case for summary assessment of costs.

10.  Having perused the Statement of Costs produced by the Plaintiff, although the Plaintiff has to deal with some of the other issues raised by the Defendants, I am of the view that the overall amount claimed by the Plaintiff is excessive. I reduce the costs by 25% and I summarily assess the Plaintiff’s costs in the sum of $900,000.