OLN

Test Blog

Enforcing a French Court Judgment in Hong Kong

by

If you have obtained a decision in your favour in an overseas jurisdiction against a Hong Kong company or individual, the key question for you would be whether or not this judgment can be enforced in Hong Kong.

A court decision cannot be enforced overseas without first being recognised by the relevant countries concerned, and Hong Kong is no exception to this principle.

French courts are issuing an increasing number of decisions against non-French companies, including many registered in Hong Kong. According to French law, to enforce a judgment by a French court in an overseas jurisdiction, there is an obligation to comply with the ‘Exequatur procedure,’ and this procedure may vary depending on the overseas jurisdictions involved.

Enforcement in Hong Kong 

The enforcement of French or other foreign judgments can be obtained in two ways: either registering the decision with the Court of First Instance or bringing a new legal action.

As far as France is concerned, the exequatur procedure that must be followed is the former – registering the decision with the Court of First Instance. There is no need to bring new legal action and start the whole process from the beginning again.

When you have obtained a conviction against a Hong Kong company, the core considerations before moving forward are the following:

1.    Is the defendant solvent in Hong Kong?
2.    Is the judgment final?
3.    Does the decision order payment of monetary damages?

If the answers to these three questions are affirmative, you can then consider the next steps to take.

Once the defendant’s solvency in Hong Kong is established, it is possible to proceed with the registration procedure, which is provided for in the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act Cap 319. This text enables the enforcement of foreign judgments by registering decisions from superior courts in designated countries with reciprocal arrangements with Hong Kong. These designated countries include Australia, Bermuda, Brunei, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Austria, the Netherlands, and Israel. 

Under these provisions, the beneficiary of a French court’s decision may apply to the Court of First Instance in Hong Kong for registration.

Here are some of the conditions to be met (this list is not exhaustive):

•    the decision must relate to the payment of a sum of money;
•    the decision must be final and not subject to appeal;
•    the decision must be issued by a civil or commercial court; and
•    the application must be filed within six years of the final decision from the foreign jurisdiction.

Once the decision is registered in Hong Kong, a notification will be served to the defendant, and the decision can be enforced in the same way as the decisions by local courts.

Security for Costs

A critical specificity in Hong Kong, is that the local court can ask the plaintiff seeking enforcement for security in the form of a deposit. It is well-established in Hong Kong that a foreign plaintiff may be ordered to deposit a sum in court, known as the ‘Security for costs’ when starting legal proceedings.

The security for costs aims to cover part of the defendant’s estimated litigation costs in defending an action brought by a foreign plaintiff. When the defendant successfully defends the action, the amount of its legal costs that normally would be payable by the foreign plaintiff, would be secured by the security for costs. 

Therefore, depending on the amounts involved, this can act as a deterrent for overseas plaintiffs as they may not want to have a significant financial sum locked up in Hong Kong.

As mentioned above, this procedure of registration at the Court of First Instance is only available for a specific list of countries (including France). Therefore, for other jurisdictions you should always check if the jurisdiction issuing the decision to be enforced in Hong Kong is also on this list. If not, the possibility of bringing a new legal action based on the foreign judgment remains open. 

No Requirement for Reciprocity

This procedure is possible even if the decision does not emanate from a common-law jurisdiction as there is no requirement for reciprocity. A decision rendered by a court in a jurisdiction that does not recognize a judgment made by a Hong Kong court may still be enforced in Hong Kong if all the conditions are met.

Should you wish to enforce a foreign decision in Hong Kong, and more specifically a decision issued by a French judge, it is highly recommended to contact a Hong Kong lawyer to discuss the best way forward.

Trade Mark Reviews in China – Some Encouraging Successes

by

The general principles in determining whether a trade mark can be registered in China are to a large extent the same as in most other countries, considering China is also one of many jurisdictions in the WIPO Madrid International Registration system. Indistinctive or descriptive marks which fail to achieve registration in the European Union will probably have no chance of registration in China. Yet it does not mean that trade marks which are clearly distinctive and registered in most places around the world will naturally be accepted for registration in China because certain technical or special grounds can withhold registration, putting aside the relative ground due to existence of prior similar marks.

For example, a mark will likely have its registration declined in China if it comprises a country name or any foreign geographical name widely known to the public. During the course of substantive examination, the Examiner may not look at every aspect to find out if the relevant name has any other meanings or references in the whole context of the mark. Upon refusal, the Applicant will have to resort to the review process to explain and justify that the mark in its entirety can satisfy the requirements for registration.  

There are 3 scenarios where a mark comprising a geographical name may be registered: –

  1. the name has another meaning
  2. the name forms part of a collective or certification trade mark
  3. the name is not a dominant element of the mark and it only serves to indicate the corresponding place of origin of the applicant    

Marie France Van Damme

Fashion designer Marie France Van Damme uses her own personal name for branding purposes and has been trading under the mark  . However, this was initially declined for registration in Class 25 for “clothing” in China because of the word “FRANCE” within the trade mark. Ms Van Damme succeeded in the review by convincing the review adjudicator that the word “France” is generally perceived by consumers, in the context of her brand, as the name of a living person instead of referring to the country of France.  

URAL

The mark  was initially declined for registration in Class 9 for “loudspeakers” in China because of the word “URAL” in the mark being associated with the Ural Mountains located along the East European and West Siberian plains. The applicant succeeded in the review by convincing the review adjudicator that the word “URAL” can also be a surname and a specie of owl. The evidence of pre-application use of the mark by the extensive sales of the goods in China might have supported this case. However, as it is not expressly entered as a condition of registration in China whether or not a mark has been granted based on acquired distinctiveness through use, such unreported precedent gives us a useful hint or guidance that this approach can work in some cases.    

Car And Driver

Suggestive marks are often just categorically seen as descriptive marks in China. The application for   was initially declined registration in Class 4 for ‘fuels’ as the words ‘CAR’ and “DRIVER” seem closely associated with the products of “fuels” for automobiles but if we look at these words more carefully, they are not directly connected to the essential characteristics and functions of the goods. The Applicant succeeded in the review by convincing the review adjudicator that the mark as a whole is not directly descriptive of the goods sought to be registered and it is capable of functioning as a trade mark to indicate the source of origin of the goods.  

China has a tremendously high number of trade mark applications filed on a daily basis. We just need to bear with a reasonable degree of discrepancy, fluctuation and inconsistency between different examiners in assessing the inherent registrability of a trade mark. The good news is we can always rely on the review mechanism to share our views and analysis with the more senior examiners to reassess whether a mark, which is usually unique on its own, can satisfy the requirements for registration as laid down in the Trade Mark Law. We are seeing good progress as China becomes more aligned with rest of the world in the administration of the trade mark regime.  

短時間でわかる香港法上の遺産管理

by

遺産の処理と管理は複雑な問題であり、どこから手をつけるべきか分からない方々も多いはずです。大切な方の死はとても受け入れがたいことであり、遺産を処理するための書類探しや適切な手続についての情報収集に奔走するような余裕は本来ありません。私たちは日々、このようなストレスに苛まれるクライアントの皆様を目の当たりにします。そこで、本記事では、遺言書を検認し遺産を管理するためのプロベート取得の通常の手続を、段階ごとに要約しました。この記事が、よりスムーズな手続進行の一助になれば幸いです。

ステップ1:死亡の登録

被相続人の死亡後は、まず出生死亡登録官に死亡の旨を登録し、死亡証明書を取得します。死亡証明書を取得するには、死因を記載した診断書を提出する必要があります。

ステップ2:葬儀の手配

死亡証明書を取得した後、葬儀の手配を始めることができます。

遺言書がある場合は、後述のとおり、遺言執行者として遺言書に記載された方が、葬儀を手配する責任を負います。被相続人は、遺言により、埋葬又は火葬を希望する旨の意思を表示することができます。遺言執行者は、葬儀の手配にあたり、このような希望を考慮に入れるべきです。

葬儀の手配および遺体の処理に要する費用は、被相続人の遺産から支払われます。しかし、遺産承弁署から権限が与えられていないため、通常、この早い段階で被相続人の遺産を処理することは認められていません。したがって、実際には、被相続人の家族がそれらの費用を支払い、代理権の付与を得た後、それらの費用が遺産から払い戻されます。

ステップ3:遺言書の捜索と貸金庫の調査 

被相続人の遺言があったかどうか、そして、遺言があった場合は、それが最新の遺言か、後に取り消されたかどうかを慎重に確認する必要があります。(このステップは、被相続人の家族が、葬儀の手配を取りまとめる遺言執行者がいるかどうかを知るために、早めに行うこともあります。)

遺言書を捜すためには、被相続人の個人的書類を確認したり、被相続人の家族に確認したりすることから始めることができます。被相続人の貸金庫もチェックしなければならない場合もあります。

貸金庫を開披するために、下記の方が、民政事務総署長に対し、貸金庫の調査依頼証書の交付を申請することができます。

  1. 遺言執行者又は複数の遺言執行者のうち一名
  2. 遺産を管理する権限を与えられた者
  3. 貸金庫が被相続人と他人と共同で賃借されている場合は、生存する借主

調査依頼証書を取得した後、証書の所持者は、民政事務局長および銀行と、貸金庫の調査のための面談を設定すべきです。

貸金庫の中から遺言書が見つかり、遺言書において調査依頼証書の所持者が遺言執行者に指名されている場合、または所持者が貸金庫の生存する借主の場合、所持者は、遺言書の写しを取り、その写しを貸金庫に返却した後、遺言書を取り出すことができます。所持者は、貸金庫の内容物の目録も作成するべきです。

遺言書がない場合、または、遺言書がある場合でi) 貸金庫の調査依頼証書の所持者が遺言執行者ではない場合、もしくはii) 遺言執行者が遺言書の中で指名されておらず、証書の所持者が貸金庫の生存する借主でない場合には、銀行員は、遺言書(もしあれば)の写しを入手し、その写しを公務員に渡した後に、直ちに貸金庫を閉鎖すべきです。

なお、調査中は、遺言書(もしあれば)を除いて、貸金庫から物品を取り出さないようにご留意ください。

ステップ4:代理権の付与の取得 

その後、被相続人の資産を処理するためには、通常、代理権の付与を受けることが必要です。

被相続人が、遺言執行者を選任する遺言を残して亡くなった場合、遺言執行者は、プロベートの付与を申請すべきです。被相続人が、有効な遺言を残さずに亡くなった場合(例えば、遺言書が発見されなかった、遺言書が取り消された等)、妻や子のような、権利を有する者は、遺産管理状の付与を申請すべきです。

遺産管理状の付与申請は、高等法院遺産承弁署に対して、下記の根拠書類を含む特定の書式で行います。

  1. 遺言執行者/遺産管理人による確約または宣誓供述書;
  2. 資産および負債の一覧表を証明する確約または宣誓供述書、被相続人の死亡日時点の香港における資産および負債の一覧表ならびにその他根拠書類 (例えば、被相続人の死亡証明書、被相続人の遺言書、申請者と被相続人の関係を示す証明書、申請手数料等)

申請を行った後、遺産承弁署は、さらなる情報の入手または明確化のために、申請について追加要請を出すことができます。遺産承弁署がその追加要請に対する回答に満足した場合、遺産管理状が発行されます。

ステップ5:遺産の分配 

遺産管理状の付与を受けた後、遺産の個人代理人(遺言における遺言執行者または遺言がない場合は選任された遺産管理人)は、まず、被相続人の遺産から資産を回収した後、遺産に関連する被相続人の債務の弁済、葬式その他の費用の支払いを行う必要があります。その後、遺産は適宜分配することができます。

有効な遺言がない場合、遺産管理人は、無遺言遺産条例に従って遺産を分配すべきです。相続権の順位は、生存する親族と被相続人との関係によって決まります。無遺言死亡法のもとでは、被相続人と直接血縁関係にある方のみが利益を与え、未婚のパートナー、継子(養子縁組をしない限り)および姻族には利益が与えられないことに留意すべきです。

例えば、被相続人が配偶者のみを残して死亡し、子、父母またはその他の近しい親族がいない場合、生存する配偶者は、被相続人の残りの遺産の全てを取得する権利を有します。別の例として、被相続人が配偶者と子を残して死亡した場合、生存する配偶者は、被相続人の全ての個人的な動産および残りの財産から合計500,000香港ドルを取得する権利を有し、その後、残余財産がある場合は半分に分割され、被相続人の生存する配偶者と子との間で均等に分配されます。

他方で、有効な遺言がある場合、遺言執行者は、遺言における被相続人の希望に従って遺産を分配すべきです。部分的な無遺言(すなわち、被相続人の資産を完全には処分しない旨の遺言がある場合)がある場合、それらの未処分の資産の分配については、無遺言遺産条例により規律されることになります。

おわりに 

上記は、ある方が亡くなった後の問題および被相続人の遺産の処理のプロセスを簡単に要約したものにすぎません。実際には、プロベートを得て遺産を管理するあらゆる段階において、複雑な問題が生じることがあります。上記に関するご不明点がある場合、または当事務所のプロベート・エステートプランニングについてご興味・ご関心がある場合は、当事務所のチームメンバーにご連絡ください。 

本記事は情報提供のみを目的としています。本記事の内容は、法律上の助言を構成するものではなく、本記事をもって個々の事例における詳細な助言に代替されるとみなされることがないことにご留意ください。

2021年3月

OLN IP’s Benjamin Choi Ranked in 2021 WTR 1000

by

Congratulations to Benjamin Choi, Managing Director of OLN IP, who is a ‘Ranked Individual’ in the Silver Tier for Prosecution & Strategy in 2021 World Trademark Review 1000 – the world’s leading trade mark professionals.

Benjamin Choi recently joined our legal and business solutions platform as Managing Director of OLN IP Services (OLN IP), a new venture that expands OLN Oldham Li & Nie’s intellectual property services. OLN IP is a consultancy offering tailored, commercially-driven advice to intellectual property owners, across the different IP asset classes, including IP portfolio management. 

Congratulations again to Benjamin for his ranking.

About OLN IP

OLN IP consultancy is dedicated to providing bespoke, commercially-driven advice to owners of Intellectual Property from assisting with technology-based IP, trade marks, copyright, patents and designs to managing IP portfolios on an ongoing basis. OLN IP is led by Benjamin Choi as Managing Director, and Vera Sung, both veterans in the IP space, and backed by a seasoned team of intellectual property experts from our Hong Kong and Shanghai offices, who together bring formidable experience and depth of knowledge to provide clients with nuanced and precise IP advice tailored to their business needs. 

OLN IP is a member of the legal, corporate and financial services platform of OLN Oldham, Li & Nie Solicitors, a leading Hong Kong law firm, with offices in Hong Kong and mainland China, whose commitment to professional excellence has driven its growth and development since 1987.

March 2021

Hong Kong Trade Mark Practice Goes International

by

Hong Kong is expecting the launch of the International Registration (IR) of Trade Marks under the WIPO Madrid System by tentatively end of 2022 or early 2023. This will be in addition to the long established and territorial based trade mark registration system, whereby trade mark owners domiciled or incorporated in Hong Kong can designate their marks registered in Hong Kong for extended registration in selected multiple countries or jurisdictions worldwide within the Madrid network. This eliminates the necessity for individual national filings to obtain registration in each of the countries intended for protection. Overseas trade mark owners can also extend their home registrations through the IR system for designation in Hong Kong to save them the need for separate registration in Hong Kong.      

On 19 June 2020, the Trade Marks (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 came into force to pave the way for the administration and examination of IR trade marks under the Madrid System. The Hong Kong Intellectual Property Department (IPD) has revamped the trademark law and practice, and taken the opportunity to simplify or modify certain processes, work flows and formality requirements enabling trade mark owners and their trade mark service providers to handle and administer their portfolios with better ease and convenience.  

The chart below illustrates the changes that have already been implemented or that we may expect going forward. 

PastPresent or Near FutureBenefits
Only the Applicant’s name and address need to be provided in the Application form.The Applicant’s country and state (for the US) of incorporation need to be specified in the Application form, apart from its name and address.This helps to better identify the origin and incorporation status of the Applicant or Owner of the trade mark based on the official records. 
Original letter of consent signed by the owner of an earlier mark cited was strictly required.Now a scanned or photocopy of a letter of consent is considered satisfactory to resolve a relative ground of refusal based on an earlier mark.This saves the Applicant the time to wait for the postage of the original letter of consent from abroad and the effort of the grantor posting the original letter especially during the Covid restriction. 
Certified priority document (extract of filing issued in the first filing country) required in support of a Paris Convention priority claim. Certified priority document is dispensed with unless specifically requested by the Registry.This saves the Applicant the time and cost to arrange for issuance of the certified priority document.
The Trade Marks Registrar will maintain the Applicant’s own earlier registered marks bearing a different and former address as conflicting marks due to the address difference unless the Applicant properly enters change of address for all the marks concerned in the Register.Now an applicant is not required to record address change for its own earlier registered marks (bearing a different address) as and when cited as conflicting prior marks due to the address discrepancy. 
The applicant or its agent can simply inform the TMR in writing that the applicant is the same entity as the owner of the cited trademarks (subject to documentary proof).		This saves the Applicant the costs of recording address change for its older trademark records. 
All opposition forms and documents must be printed, signed and filed at the Trade Marks Registry office. Now a Notice of Opposition and Extension of Time for Opposition can be filed through the IPD online portal.This saves the need for the Opponent or its agent to attend the Registry’s office to file opposition documents within the office hours. 
All hearings before the Trade Marks Registry conducted in person unless a party opted for paper submission. Hearings may be conducted on paper, orally or via video conferencing or other electronic means.This copes with the Covid social distancing requirements in the past year.
An Applicant seeking to revoke a third party’s registered mark on the ground of non-use has to produce prima facie evidence of non-use usually by engaging a private investigator to conduct market intelligence. In the near future, an Applicant seeking to revoke a third party’s registered mark will not be obliged to produce prima facie evidence of non-use when filing the non-use revocation.  It is solely the owner’s responsibility to prove actual use of the mark to defend a non-use claim. This saves the costs and time of the Applicant to conduct the pre-revocation filing investigation which can be quite costly. 
   

The IPD is still working on the Trade Marks (Amendment) Rules 2021. We will monitor the changes in the trade mark regime and keep you up-to-date on our practice. 

26 February 2021

There Is A Caveat to The Will – What are the Next Steps?

by

What can be done if there are disputes over the validity of a will or the administrator of the estate? Provided that the ‘Grant of representation’ has not yet been issued by the Hong Kong Probate Registry, which would indicate that it has already validated the will, a concerned party may enter a ‘Caveat’. This will ensure that the “Caveator’, that is the person who lodges the caveat, will be informed if any application is made for the issue of a grant of representation.

While the existence of a caveat may indicate there are genuine concerns in a probate or administration process and therefore a sign of potential disputes, the effect of entering a caveat is not necessarily contentious in itself. Nevertheless, caveat proceedings do start when a caveat is lodged with the Probate Registry against an estate of a Deceased. The Probate Registry only process non-contentious applications for grant. If the application has become “contentious”, the contention must be resolved first. In theory, the entering of a caveat can be contentious, and the caveat must be dealt with first before the application can be processed further.

A caveat is a notice preventing a grant of representation being issued by the Registry without notice to the caveator. Some of the common reasons to enter a caveat are:-

•    To allow more time for the caveator to make enquiries, obtain further information or evidence to:

o    Oppose proof of a will
o    Challenge the validity of a will
o    Oppose the issue of the grant of representation to the person entitled
o    Ascertain entitlement where there is no will (the deceased died intestate)

•    To act as a preliminary step to a probate action, or to citation (for more information, see our article on citations)
•    To be a first step in an application by people who have equal entitlement to the grant of representation

Once entered, a caveat remains in force for 6 months from the date of entry and then automatically ceases to have effect, unless withdrawn or removed prior to such date. There is no limitation to the number of further caveats and extensions that can be made. 

How to Handle a Caveat?

Issuing of any grant of representation shall not be allowed if the Probate Registry has knowledge of an effective caveat. Where an effective caveat is in place, the applicant for grant of the relevant estate would be asked by the Registrar to deal with the caveat. This can sometimes come as a surprise to grant applicants as they may not have been previously aware of the caveat.

Depending on the circumstances, there are various ways of handling an estate with a caveat. In any event, given the many potential contentious issues that may arise and the sensitive nature of probate or administration in general, legal advice should be sought and the matter should always be handled with care.

A caveat can only be removed:-

•    By withdrawal of the caveat by the caveator giving notice at the Probate Registry, as long as an appearance to a warning has not been entered
•    By the non-appearance of a caveator to the warning to caveator
•    By an order of the High Court that the caveat does cease to have effect and a grant of representation be issued
•    By the expiration of 6 months form the date of entry or effective extension

It may be worrying to discover that a caveat has been lodge, but it is not unusual to find occasions where the caveat process is misused and caveats are simply lodged to stall for time, or even where parties have no grounds to contest a will or the administration of an estate. Where there is no valid reason to lodge a caveat, there could be costs consequences for the caveator. 

Whether you discovered a caveat or you are thinking of entering one, it should be reminded that caveat proceedings are by nature contentious and can well be the start of a litigation. Any step taken after the commencement of a caveat proceedings could cause legal consequences, including costs. It is therefore recommended that you seek independent legal advice before taking any step in dealing with a caveat.

If you have any questions regarding the above or would like to obtain further information on our probate and estate planning services, please feel free to contact our Probate and Estate Planning team.  

This article is for information purposes only. Its contents do not constitute legal advice and readers should not regard this article as a substitute for detailed advice in individual instances.

February 2021