SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SA AND ANOTHER v. LOW-VOLTAGE APPARATUS (HK) HOLDINGS CO LTD
HTML content
HCA 2280/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO 2280 OF2013
_________________
BETWEEN
| SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SA | 1st Plaintiff | |
| SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC (HK) LIMITED | 2nd Plaintiff | |
| and | ||
| SHINAIDE ELECTRICAL ASIA & PACIFIC LIMITED (施耐德電氣(亞太)有限公司) | Defendant |
_________________
HCA 2281/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO 2281 OF2013
_________________
BETWEEN
| SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SA | 1st Plaintiff | |
| SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC (HK) LIMITED | 2nd Plaintiff | |
| and | ||
| SHINAIDE INTELLIGENCE ELECTRIC LIMITED (施耐德智能電氣有限公司) | Defendant |
_________________
HCA 2282/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO 2282 OF2013
_________________
BETWEEN
| SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SA | 1st Plaintiff | |
| SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC (HK) LIMITED | 2nd Plaintiff | |
| and | ||
| LOW-VOLTAGE APPARATUS (HK) HOLDINGS CO LIMITED (施耐德低壓電氣(香港)股份有限公司) | Defendant |
_________________
| Before: Hon Zervos J in Chambers |
| Date of Hearing: 26 March 2014 |
| Date of Judgment: 26 March 2014 |
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
1. This is yet another batch of applications involving shadow companies. The plaintiff has commenced proceedings against various defendants which have been allowed to incorporate in Hong Kong with a name similar to that of the plaintiff or its trade names or trade marks in English or Chinese. The object of the persons behind the defendant companies is to use the Hong Kong incorporation for the purposes of passing off and infringing the trade names or trade marks of the plaintiff. When it comes to institute civil proceedings by the plaintiff against each of the defendant companies, there is no response to the litigation concerned. It appears that the persons behind the companies have left the jurisdiction and armed with the Hong Kong company and the incorporation records use them in Mainland China in furtherance of a fraud by trade mark infringement and passing off.
2. This is a typical case of a shadow company. The characteristic features of a case of this type were described by me in Power Dekor (Hong Kong) Ltd v Power Dekor Group Co Ltd, HCA 1139/2013, unreported, 9 January 2014.
3. Having considered the papers filed and the submissions for the plaintiff, I am satisfied in each case that service of the relevant papers has been properly effected and that the defendant has defaulted in filing a notice of intention to defend and a defence.
4. Accordingly, I enter judgment for the plaintiff against each of the defendants in HCA 2280/2013; 2281/2013 and 2282/2013 and I order the relief sought by the plaintiff in the respective summons.
| (Kevin Zervos) Judge of the Court of First Instance | |
| High Court |
Mr Kenny Cheung, of Baker & McKenzie, for the plaintiff