• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
location icon香港中环雪厂街二号圣佐治大厦五楼503室phone-icon +852 2868 0696 linkedintwitterfacebook
OLN IP Services
close-btn
OLN IP Services
Get bespoke and commercially-driven advice to your Intellectual Property
Learn More
OLN IP Services
OLN Online
close-btn
OLN Online
Powered by Oldham, Li & Nie, the law firm of choice for Hong Kong’s vibrant startup and SME community, OLN Online is a forward-looking and seamless addition to traditional legal services – a true disruptor.
Learn More
OLN IP Services
  • 简
    • ENG
    • 繁
    • FR
    • 日本語
Oldham, Li & Nie
OLN IP Services
close-btn
OLN IP Services
Get bespoke and commercially-driven advice to your Intellectual Property
Learn More
OLN IP Services
OLN Online
close-btn
OLN Online
Powered by Oldham, Li & Nie, the law firm of choice for Hong Kong’s vibrant startup and SME community, OLN Online is a forward-looking and seamless addition to traditional legal services – a true disruptor.
Learn More
OLN IP Services
  • 关于
        • 奖项与排名
        • 企业社会责任
  • 专业服务
        • 加拿大公证服务
        • 中国事务
        • 破产法
        • 人身伤害法
        • 新创公司
        • 中国委托公证服务
        • 争议解决
        • 公司和商业法
        • 家事法
        • 保险
        • 私人客户 – 遗产规划和遗嘱认证
        • 税务咨询部
        • 投资基金
        • 长者法律服务
        • 商业诈骗和资产追踪
        • 法国事务
        • 知识产权法
        • 日本事务
        • 合规、调查和执法
        • 公证服务
        • 金融服务监管部
        • 加拿大公证服务
        • 中国事务
        • 公司和商业法
        • 商业诈骗和资产追踪
        • 争议解决
        • 香港雇佣法和商业移民法律服务
        • 家事法
        • 法国事务
        • 投资基金
        • 破产法
        • 保险
        • 知识产权法
        • 公证服务
        • 人身伤害法
        • 私人客户 – 遗产规划和遗嘱认证
        • 金融服务监管部
        • 新创公司
        • 税务咨询部
        • 日本事务
        • 长者法律服务
        • 合规、调查和执法
        • 中国委托公证服务
        • 香港雇佣法和商业移民法律服务
  • 律師團隊
  • 最新消息
  • 办事处

Suite 503, St. George's Building,
2 Ice House Street, Central, Hong Kong

Tel. +852 2868 0696 | Send Email
linkedin twitter facebook
OLN Blue

OLN

  • Block Content Examples
  • Client Information & Registration
  • Contact Us
  • Cookie Policy (EU)
  • Globalaw
  • OLN Podcasts
  • Privacy Policy
  • Review
  • Test Blog
  • 专业服务
  • 关于我们
  • 办事处
  • 加入我们
  • 律師團隊
  • 我们的历史
    • 奖项与排名
    • 高李严律师行的企业社会责任
  • 所获奖项
  • 标准服务条款
  • 联系我们
  • 评价
  • 评语
  • 高李严律师事务所和社区
  • 高李严律师行
  • 关于
        • 奖项与排名
        • 企业社会责任
  • 专业服务
        • 加拿大公证服务
        • 中国事务
        • 破产法
        • 人身伤害法
        • 新创公司
        • 中国委托公证服务
        • 争议解决
        • 公司和商业法
        • 家事法
        • 保险
        • 私人客户 – 遗产规划和遗嘱认证
        • 税务咨询部
        • 投资基金
        • 长者法律服务
        • 商业诈骗和资产追踪
        • 法国事务
        • 知识产权法
        • 日本事务
        • 合规、调查和执法
        • 公证服务
        • 金融服务监管部
        • 加拿大公证服务
        • 中国事务
        • 公司和商业法
        • 商业诈骗和资产追踪
        • 争议解决
        • 香港雇佣法和商业移民法律服务
        • 家事法
        • 法国事务
        • 投资基金
        • 破产法
        • 保险
        • 知识产权法
        • 公证服务
        • 人身伤害法
        • 私人客户 – 遗产规划和遗嘱认证
        • 金融服务监管部
        • 新创公司
        • 税务咨询部
        • 日本事务
        • 长者法律服务
        • 合规、调查和执法
        • 中国委托公证服务
        • 香港雇佣法和商业移民法律服务
  • 律師團隊
  • 最新消息
  • 办事处

合约受挫失效原则:冠状病毒大流行(Covid-19)是否为商业租户不支付租金提供了法律依据?

Test Blog

合约受挫失效原则:冠状病毒大流行(Covid-19)是否为商业租户不支付租金提供了法律依据?

April 22, 2020 by OLN Marketing

作者:陈韵祺, 谢升余及何乐为

与世界其他地区一样,香港正竭力应对冠状病毒在不同方面造成的影响。冠状病毒大流行不仅夺走了无数生命,而且大肆破坏了经济。您是否租用了你以为就能负担得起的房屋,直至冠状病毒改变一切之前?您是否打算以冠状病毒为由而退出已经签署了的租赁协议?在本文中,我们将列出一些常见问题并为您提供答案,以便您可以了解公共卫生突发事件(例如冠状病毒)可能对房东和房客的权利和义务产生什么影响。

问题1:是否有人曾因病毒爆发而提起诉讼以终止租赁协议/摆脱租赁义务 ↓

问题2:Li Chun Wing的判决是否使未来的租户不再因Covid-19大流行而依赖合约受挫失效原则?↓

问题3:那么,租户如何才能立即终止租约并要求退还预付了的租金/押金?↓

问题4:鉴于上述情况,房东应采取什么行动?↓

问题5:如果我打算签订新的租赁协议,应该注意什么?↓

问题1:是否有人曾因病毒爆发而提起诉讼以终止租赁协议/摆脱租赁义务?

回答:

是的,但是相关案例是关于家庭租赁的情况。

2003年,香港因严重急性呼吸系统综合症(SARS)爆发而遭受重创。该综合症在全球感染了8,096人,造成744人死亡。香港的私人住宅淘大花园E座不幸有共107人被感染。鉴于形势严峻,政府对该处施加了10天的隔离令,强行撤离其中的所有居民。随后,科学研究发现污水处理系统中的U型渠干涸,导致病毒从建筑污水处理系统传播回公寓。

不幸的淘大花园E座租户面临两难困境:在这种情况下,他们是否有法律根据终止租约?还是应该在隔离令期满后继续留在这个对许多人来说并不安全的场所?

該問題在香港區域法院Li Chun Wing v Xuan Yi Xiong [2004] 1 HKLRD 754一案中得到了法庭的指引。在此案中,E座的租戶(“ T”)在隔離令失效後終止了他的兩年租約,而房東(“ L”)針對T向法庭申請簡易判決,對T索取應計租金和因據稱拒絕租賃協議而造成的損失。因此,在該案中法院要考慮的是,T是否有權終止租賃協議。

T主要依賴的法律原則是合約受挫失效。這個原則所指的是,當發生重大事件(沒有任何一方違約且合同未提供清楚足夠的條款)時,從而大大改變了當事方可以合理考慮的未履行的合同權利和/或義務在執行時,法庭可以決定各方毋須進一步執行合同。但是,該重大而突發的事件不僅必須增加簽約方的負擔,而且必須要如此重要以至於要完全從合同中解除當事人,否則會造成不公平的情況。在考慮合約受挫失效的論點時,區域法院指出,此案的10天隔離令就房舍的整體使用而言是微不足道的,因為有關租賃協議的期限為2年。因此,法院駁回了關於合約受挫失效的論點,並裁定租賃令不受隔離令的影響。

T的另一种论点是,租赁协议中应该有一个隐含的约定使该场所适合租客居住。法院同样驳回了这个论点,因为法院通常不会在租赁协议中加入这种隐含的约定,而且无论如何,在该案件中并没有证据表明在隔离令期满后该栋大厦仍然是不安全的。

问题2:Li Chun Wing的判决是否使未来的租户不再因Covid-19大流行而依赖合约受挫失效原则

回答:不一定。法院在Li Chun Wing的判词中强调:导致承租人对房屋的预期使用中断的事件不会使租赁受挫失效,除非该中断预计会持续至租赁的完结,或至少会持续在未到期的期限内很长一段时间。这就是说,流行病的持续时间,或更确切地说,与租期相比流行病的相对持续时间,是决定租约是否受挫的重要因素。正如传染病专家指出的那样,Covid-19可能不会迅速消失,我们可能不得不与之展开长期战争。这可能与SARS疫情形成鲜明对比。 SARS疫情最初对香港造成了沉重打击,但在数周内迅速得到缓解。因此,对于租期短的租户来说,他们可能更容易依赖合约受挫失效原则。但是,这并不意味着长租约永远都不能同样地依赖挫败原则,因为Li Chun Wing只是区域法院的裁决。另一方面,在最近的英国高等法院Canary Wharf (BP4) T1 Limited & ors v European Medicines Agency [2019] EWHC 335 (Ch)一案中,有人提出这不仅仅是租约时长的问题,而取而代之的是,法院应通过综合考虑所有情况来决定合同的“共同目标”是否受到挫败。这将要求我们超越租赁本身并考虑以下的因素:- 租约签署时的背景或上下文- 租约订立时双方(特别是关于风险)的知识,期望,假设和考虑- 重大事件的性质;和- 各方对在新情况下对能否履行合同未来表现的可能性进行的合理和客观推测 问题3:那么,租户如何才能立即终止租约并要求退还预付了的租金/押金?回答:除非合同另有规定,否则房东和租户通常无权在合同规定的期限届满之前随时终止租约。在大多数情况下,即使使了用不可抗力条款,它们也仅允许暂停租金或减租,而不允许终止租赁。但是,除了上述可能引起合约挫败失效的情况外,在某些情况下,如果发生了毁约性违约,则非违约方有权终止租赁。通常,只有在违反合同的程度足以使非违约方被剥夺合同“实质上所有利益”的情况下,才产生毁约性违约。如果房东单方面决定关闭租赁地点,除非双方另有同意,房东有可能会违反了默示的隐含的安静享受条款。但是,在政府强制关闭的情况下,会比较难将错误归咎于房东并声称房东违反了租约。租户预付的租金或预付款(例如两个月的租金)而言,首先,必须转向实际的租赁协议,并检查双方方是否就如何处理定金达成协议。如果合同在此问题上不清楚或沉默,则需要对租赁协议和情况进行逐案分析。在简单直接的情况下,即房东违反了租赁协议以致引起毁约性违约,则租户几乎可以确定终止租赁并要求退还押金。相反,如果承租人是违约方,则房东可能会将押金用于支付因承租人违约造成的损失。但是,如上所述,很多时候承租人可能不能够客易地确定他/她是否有权以其他理由(例如沮丧)撤销合同或终止合同(请参阅上文问题2的答案)。这是房客必须格外谨慎的地方,因为如果后来裁定该违规行为不是毁约性的违规行为,则他们可能有责任向房东赔偿未付的租金,间接损失和法律费用。 问题4:鉴于上述情况,房东应采取什么行动?回答:对于房东,在开始任何法律收取租金之前,请务必考虑您收取租金的权利是否受到Covid-19的影响。如下所述,您的租赁协议中可能包含合同条款(例如不可抗力条款和“重大不利变化”条款),这些条款已经考虑到了流行病/大流行的情况,并使当事方在特定情况下不必履行合同。当然,答案将在很大程度上取决于当事方的意图和其他环境因素。 问题5:如果我打算签订新的租赁协议,应该注意什么?回答:除了明确的合同终止条款外,各方还必须注意不可抗力条款和“重大不利变化”(MAC)条款。有关不可抗力条款的讨论,请参阅我们的高级合伙人Gordon Oldham撰写的文章:https://oln-law.com/are-you-frustrated-by-your-force-majeure-clause。缔约方可考虑提供明确明确的不可抗力条款,以包括流行病/大流行事件。此外,合同中通常会包含MAC条款,其中明确规定,某些重大改变一方当事人的业务、营运、资产、负债、状况(例如财务状况)的事件可能会产生终止协议的权利。同样,与不可抗力条款一样,如果各方希望依靠MAC条款,该条款必须明确地包括流行/大流行事件。如果以一般方式起草MAC条款,则法院倾向于狭义地解释该条款并将Covid-19排除为MAC事件。在确定是否触发MAC子句时,还必须针对以下情况进行案例分析:- 双方的意图- 双方对处理Covid-19情况的讨论;- 该方业务的市场可比性;和- 将该方的业务绩效与可比市场的绩效进行比较。 结语随着Covid-19形势的不确定性发展,我们认为可能会出现一些案例,测试合约受挫失效原则是否可以将租户从租约中解雇,以及在什么情况下会发生这种情况。在有明确的指导方针之前,我们建议房东和租户都留意情况并审查关键的租赁协议条款,以评估Covid-19对他们造成的具体影响。与大多数其他争端类似,最好的解决办法是始终考虑各种商业现实和实用性来尝试友好的谈判和讨论。如果租户发现不可避免地要放弃租金,我们建议他/她与房东进行讨论,并尝试在采取任何法律行动之前理清租金减免是否可行。 如果您希望获得法律意见以评估您的当前状况,请随时与我们联系(anna.chan@oln-law.com或martin.tse@oln-law.com),我们很乐意为您提供解答和帮助。免责声明:本文仅供参考。本文中的任何内容均不得解释为对任何人的香港法律意见或任何与此有关的法律意见。高李严律师楼对因本条所载材料所造成的任何行为所造成的任何损失和/或损害不承担任何责任。

Filed Under: 争议解决

Revised Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes on E-commerce and Digital Assets – Part 2

April 21, 2020 by OLN Marketing

The Inland Revenue Department (the “IRD”) has recently revised and reissued Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes 39 (the “DIPN 39 (Revised)”) since it was first published in July 2001. Amongst others, the IRD has now provide some guidance on how it is going to assess digital assets (including but not limited to cryptocurrencies, cryptoassets or digital tokens). The article aims to discuss the tax treatment of the digital assets under the DIPN 39 (Revised).

1. No Specific Legal Legislation for Digital Assets

Currently, there is no specific provision in the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571) (the “SFO”) or other legislation which governs the digital assets or tokens. In general, if a digital token has terms and features that may qualify as “securities” as defined in the SFO, it will be subject to the regulation and scrutiny of the Securities and Futures Commission. For instance:-

1. Where a digital token offered in an initial coin offering (the “ICO”) represents equity or ownership interest in a corporation such as shareholders’ rights, i.e. the right to receive dividends and the right to participate in the distribution of the corporation’s surplus assets upon winding up, etc., such token may be regarded as “shares”;

2. Where a digital token is used to create or to acknowledge a debt or liability owed by the issuer, for example, an issuer may repay a token holder the principal of their investment on a fixed date or upon redemption, with interest paid to the token holder, such the digital tokens may be considered as a “debenture”; or

3. Where token proceeds are managed collectively by the ICO scheme operator to invest in projects with an aim to enable a token holder to participate in a share of the returns provided by the project, the digital tokens may be regarded as an interest in a “collective investment scheme”.

Payment tokens or utility tokens, however, are not subject to the regulation of the SFC.

2. Tax Treatment of the Digital Tokens and Cryptocurrency Business

As explained in the DIPN 39 (Revised), the nature of the digital tokens issued in an ICO (i.e. the rights and obligations associated with the digital tokens) will determine the taxability of the proceeds from the ICO. If “security” tokens are offered in an ICO, the proceeds thereof will be capital in nature and hence not taxable from the perspective of the issuer.  On the other hand, if utility tokens are offered in an ICO, the IRD is of the view that such proceeds could be taxable under section 14 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 622) as the proceeds represent prepayment by the token holders for future benefits or services.

As for digital token holders, if it can be established that the tokens are capital assets rather than trading stock, any profits from the disposal of the tokens will not be chargeable to profits tax. The well-established 6 badges of trade will be relied on by the IRD in determining whether a digital token is a capital asset or a trading stock. The IRD has also made it clear that it will apply the broad guiding principle in determining the source of profits arising from cryptocurrency transactions, i.e. the nature of the profits in question, the relevant operations that produced the profits in question and the place where those profit-generating operations were carried out.

3. Our Observations

Notwithstanding the inclusion of a new section for the taxation of digital assets and cryptocurrency businesses under the DIPN 39 (Revised), little concrete or additional guidance (save and except for the part on security tokens) has been provided when it comes to the determining of the nature of a digital asset and the source of profits for cryptocurrency businesses.  The over-reliance on the 6 badges of trade and the basic charge under the IRO to tax an emerging industry which involves blockchain technology is likely to cause many ICO issuers and cryptocurrency businesses to be subject to tax review by the IRD and give rise to tax disputes. It is high time for the blockchain businesses to get prepared for the IRD’s stricter scrutiny for a tax perspective.

If you have any questions on the above, please contact one of the members of our Tax Advisory Team.

Shall you be interested to download this article as a brochure, please click on the following link: Revised Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes on E-commerce and Digital Assets – Part 2

Disclaimer: This article is for reference only. Nothing herein shall be construed as Hong Kong legal advice or any legal advice for that matter to any person. Oldham, Li & Nie shall not be held liable for any loss and/or damage incurred by any person acting as a result of the materials contained in this article.

Filed Under: 税务咨询部

Hong Kong’s Tax Treatment on the Emerging E-commerce Business and Digital Assets – Part 1

April 21, 2020 by OLN Marketing

Technological advancement and shifting consumer patterns have contributed to the increasing trend of businesses or exchange done virtually. The current form of Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112) (the “IRO”), however, contain no specific provisions to deal with the taxation of e-commerce and / or digital assets businesses. To cope with such change of circumstances and to fill the gap, the Inland Revenue Department (the “IRD”) issued the Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes 39 in July 2001 to provide clarity on its taxation of e-commerce businesses. Such Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes was recently revised and issued by the IRD in late March 2020 (the “DIPN 39 (Revised)”). In gist, it adopts the general approach (as provided for under section 14[1] of the IRO and at common law) in determining whether a person is chargeable to Hong Kong Profits Tax for those businesses. The sharp difference between e-commerce businesses and traditional trading and manufacturing businesses prompted the IRD to revisit the relevant tax position and issue additional guidelines thereon. The article aims to discuss the notable changes under the DIPN 39 (Revised).

1. What does that mean by carrying on an e-commerce business in Hong Kong?

Previously, the IRD was of the view that the mere presence of a server in Hong Kong (even if the server was capable of concluding contracts, processing payments or delivering digital goods without the involvement of human activities) would not generally be considered as carrying on a business in Hong Kong.  The IRD would adopt a totality of fact approach to consider a basket of factors (including but not limited to where the goods are stored, where services were rendered, where contracts were made and where payments were made, etc.) in concluding whether or not a person was carrying on an e-commerce business in Hong Kong. 

Further, given that the server did not fall within the scope of “a branch, management or other place of business”, the mere presence of a server in Hong Kong did not constitute a permanent establishment (the “PE”) for non-resident persons and hence, those non-resident persons would not be considered as carrying on an e-commerce business in Hong Kong solely by that reason. Such position taken by the IRD was contrary to the view of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (the “OECD”).

The IRD has now adopted a substantially different position as stated in the DIPN 39 (Revised). The DIPN 39 (Revised) clearly provides that if the core operations and support activities atypically seen in an e-commerce model (see paragraph 7 of the DIPN 39 (Revised)) are performed in Hong Kong, the person concerned will be considered as carrying on an e-commerce business in Hong Kong.

The IRD’s position on “server” has also been aligned with that of the OECD. The IRD’s current view is that the server may constitute a fixed place of business (and hence a PE) if an essential and significant part of the e-commerce business (as distinguished from preparatory or auxiliary activities) is conducted via the server. This literally means that a non-resident person, who owns or rents a server in Hong Kong which is capable of concluding contracts, processing payments or delivering digital goods in Hong Kong even without the involvement of human activities in Hong Kong, might be considered as having a PE in Hong Kong for Profits Tax purposes. While the IRD clarifies that that the sub-contracting to a HK service provider which so happens hosts the non-resident’s website via a server located in HK would not constitute an establishment of PE by that non-resident per se (as long as the server is not at the disposal of the non-resident), it is noteworthy that a non-resident without a PE in HK might still be subject to the Hong Kong Profits Tax if it is regarded as carrying on a business in Hong Kong. All relevant facts and circumstances would be examined before any conclusion could be made.

2. Is the profit of the e-commerce sourced in Hong Kong?

Instead of merely looking at the location of the server, the IRD makes it clear that the correct approach in determining the source of profits of an e-commerce business should be identifying the core operations of the e-commerce business generating the profits and determining where those core operations take place.  In that respect, the IRD has provide 2 illustrations in the DIPN 39 (Revised):-

Illustration 1:If a person, resident in Hong Kong, performs all the core operations and support activities of an e-commerce business in Hong Kong apart from operating a server, intelligent or otherwise, which is at the person’s disposal and located outside Hong Kong for e-commerce purposes, the profits from the person’s e-commerce transactions will be fully charged to profits tax as profits derived from Hong Kong.
  
Illustration 2:If a person, resident in a territory which has concluded a double tax agreement with Hong Kong, performs most of the operations and support activities of an e-commerce business outside Hong Kong apart from operating merely a server with essential and significant activities which is at the person’s disposal and located in Hong Kong (i.e. the server constitutes a permanent establishment in Hong Kong), profits attributable to the server permanent establishment having regard to the functions the server performs in Hong Kong will be charged to profits tax in accordance with the general principles in section 14.

The logical conclusions to be drawn from the illustrations are that (1) if all the core operations and support activities of an e-commerce business are performed in Hong Kong, the profits generated therefrom will be subject to Profits Tax, irrespectively of the residency of the person, the location of the server and whether or not the server is at the disposal of the person; and (2) a server in Hong Kong at the disposal of a non-resident person might constitute a PE of that non-resident person, giving rise to chargeable profits attributable to that server “activities” in Hong Kong.

3. Our Observations

The IRD’s initiative to revise the rules on the taxation of e-commerce business to be aligned with international tax rules and standards is certainly welcome. The changes as contained in the DIPN 39 (revised) do provide more clarity on how the IRD is going to assess e-commerce businesses. 

Having said that, from a practical point of view, given the fast pace in the development of e-commerce businesses (e.g. crowdfunding, dashboard solutions, drop shipping, online marketplace or flexible payment solutions) and their ever-changing models, it is believed that more e-commerce businesses (whether Hong Kong resident entities or non-Hong Kong resident entities) will be subject to the review by the IRD in terms of chargeability or offshore claims for the following reasons:-

(a) it is of utmost difficulty in determining (1) whether the business activities carried out by a person engaged in an e-commerce represent core operations and support activities of a business or merely constitute preparatory activities; and (2) whether or not the activities conducted via a sever represents an essential and significant activities of the relevant e-commerce business, as all of these are judgmental and might vary between different e-commerce businesses; and

(b) it is never easy to fully comprehend an innovative e-commerce business or its model (e.g. when blockchain business first emerged) and it seems to us that the IRD and the assessors are still analyzing such business and its model in a conventional way.             

In light of the changes under DIPN 39 (Revised) which is likely to be further revised by the end of 2020 upon the finalization of the report on digitalization by the OECD, clients should review their e-commerce businesses and make changes to the models to reduce any adverse tax implication or bearing thereof or better prepare themselves for the IRD’s enquiries on the e-commerce business. If you have any questions on the above, please contact one of the members of our Tax Advisory Team.

Disclaimer: This article is for reference only. Nothing herein shall be construed as Hong Kong legal advice or any legal advice for that matter to any person. Oldham, Li & Nie shall not be held liable for any loss and/or damage incurred by any person acting as a result of the materials contained in this article.


[1] Section 14 of the IRO provides that a charge to Profits Tax will arise when the following three conditions are satisfied: (a) the person must carry on a trade, profession or business in Hong Kong; (b) the profits to be charged must be from such trade, professional or business carried on by the person in Hong Kong; and (c) the profits must be “profits arising in or derived from” Hong Kong.

Filed Under: 税务咨询部

Notarization amidst the Pandemic

April 20, 2020 by OLN Marketing

Introduction

Since the Covid-19 outbreak, one practice that has remained relatively stable is our notarial services. 

This can be easily explained as a lot of flights have now been cancelled and people are now unable (or unwilling) to travel overseas whether for business or for their private affairs, yet because of certain contractual or legal duties that they have to fulfil, they need to get legal documents signed or submitted be it affirmations for ongoing court cases, contracts for sale and purchase of assets, documents in support of emigration applications or even updated company documents to comply with their filing duties with relevant foreign authorities. 

Whilst there are some online notaries who conduct notarization by video conference, this is not a universally accepted method (certainly not in Hong Kong) largely because the notary is unable to satisfactorily verify the identity of the person as he will not be able to meet the client physically and to check that the identification document he/she holds and produces is likely to be genuine or not. Another issue is the notary cannot actually confirm the document he saw signed in a video is the one he eventually receives and notarizes. At best, he can just compare and believe it is likely to be the same document. As such, this method is not ideal and definitely not encouraged. 

What is notarization? 

In short, notarization is the process where a Notary Public prepares or authenticates certain legal documents by signing his signature and affixing his notarial seal on them. Such documents are intended to be used overseas (save for Mainland China where similar processes are conducted by a China Appointed Attesting Officer). A Notary Public in Hong Kong needs to first qualify as a Hong Kong Solicitor before he/she can take the notarial exam and be appointed by the High Court. At the moment, Hong Kong has around 400 qualified Notary Public out of more than 10,000 qualified solicitors in Hong Kong. 

What is Legalization? 

Whilst some countries seem to accept notarized documents as valid (mostly the Commonwealth countries) without being legalized, the general rule is that the signature and seal of a Notary Public should be authenticated.  This process takes place at that country’s consulate in Hong Kong to ensure that the Notary Public is a qualified person to do the job. We normally need to be first registered at the consulate before we can assist the client with the legalization process. Depending on the consulate, the process can sometimes be complicated and tedious. 

What is Apostille?

You may have come across this term before in your business dealings or personal affairs and scratched your head in puzzle. This is actually a simplified version of legalization where the documents are authenticated by apostilles issued by the High Court of Hong Kong. The documents that require authentication by apostille are normally used for signatory states or territories to The Hague Apostille Convention although a lot of non-signatory states and territories also require documents to be apostilled prior to legalization. The purpose of the Convention was to streamline the process of legalization. 

If you or your organization have questions or issues relating to this topic, please contact Selwyn Chan, Partner and Notary Public at selwyn.chan@oln-law.com. 

For more information about Selwyn Chan, Partner of Oldham, Li & Nie, please visit the following link: https://oln-law.com/selwyn-chan.  

Disclaimer:  This article is for reference only.  Nothing herein shall be construed as legal advice.  Oldham Li & Nie shall not be held liable for any loss and/or damage incurred by any person acting as a result of the materials contained in this article.

Filed Under: 公证服务

高李严律师行荣登2020年亚洲法律业务年度雇主

April 14, 2020 by OLN Marketing

我们很高兴地宣布,高李严律师行连续两年被亚洲法律业务任命为2020年年度雇主。ALB最佳选择雇主排名的编制考虑了来自亚洲各地2500多名私人执业律师的反馈,从管理合伙人到律师助理,以及ALB的市场知识。

该排名最近由ALB杂志2020年4月亚洲版发布。请找到以下出版物链接:

https://www.legalbusinessonline.com/sites/default/files/e-magazines/ALB-APR-2020/viewer/desktop/index.html?doc=5FF43EE4533154DF180E7194791EADB0

Filed Under: 最新消息

香港知识产权署运作中断的公告

April 9, 2020 by OLN Marketing

作者:杨素满

由于社区最近爆发新型冠状病毒,香港知识产权署(“知识产权署”)发布了自2020年1月28日以来第四次发出中断香港专利注册处,外观设计注册处和商标注册处运作的通知。

知识产权署将每周检查一次情况,以确定是否会发布进一步的中断通知。

在中断运作的期间,知识产权署将维持以下有限度的服务:

  • 网上检索系统 –公众可以通过公共网上检索系统进行搜索
  • 电子提交服务–电子提交服务用户可以通过电子提交系统以电子方式提交申请或其他文件
  • 每个星期五出版《香港知识产权公报公告》
  • 位于胡忠大厦二十四楼的公众柜台服务(其办公时间为星期一至五下午一时至下午五时四十五分, 并只在2月的17(星期一),19(星期三)和21(星期五)开放
  • 热线电话:2961 6901/2961 6820

所有文件可继续以邮递方式送交至胡忠大厦二十四楼的商标、外观设计及专利注册处。

中断期间的注意事项:
 

商标注册处

  • 补救不足之处通知

根据《商标规则》第11条发出的不足之处通知书内原订的有关补救不足之处的限期会顺延至中断公告所指明的日期,即紧随注册处中断运作结束日的首个办公日。 根据最近分别于2020年1月28日,2月1日,2月8日和2月14日于2020年发布的《中断通知》(以下称“中断通知”),如果截止日期为1月29日至31日,2月3日至7日之间的任何一天, 2月10日至14日,或2020年2月17日至21日,将延长至2020年2月24日(“新限期”)。

  • 处长意見通知书 

同样,中断公告一旦生效,于处长根据《商标规则》第13条发出的意见通知书内原订的有关提出书面回应/请求的限期会顺延至中断公告所指明的日期,即紧随注册处中断运作结束日的首个办公日。申请人应在新限期采取适当行动,确保其申请仍然有效。

  • 异议程序

在中断期间,在异议程序中应遵守的最后期限不一定延期。假如你原先的限期是在该中断公告所涵盖的时期之中, 则有关限期会自动延展至紧接中断公告结束日的首个办工日(“新限期”)。
但是,如果就根据《商标规则》中一些不能延展的时限而言,则应提醒诉讼各方在新的期限采取适当的行动,以保留其在诉讼中的权利。

  • 另一方提供文件

对于有争议的事项,例如异议,如你的限期是根据收到另外一方的文件的日期而决定的(例如根据《商标规则》第17(1)条提交的反陈述),提交该文件的限期即由你收到该文件(以上述为例,即反对通知)当日起开始计算。因此,无论收到文件的日期是否在中断公告所涵盖的时期之中,应不会影响计算你下一步的限期。

专利和外观设计注册 
一般而言,该期限会顺延至紧随专利/外观设计注册处中断运作结束日的首个办公日。尽管该期限获延展,但如果有关维持/续期费是在原有期限届满后但在获延展的期限届满前通过电子提交系统缴付,则由于系统的限制,该系统仍会要求申请人/所有者就「迟交」的款项缴付附加费用。在这种情况下,申请人/所有者完全有权在事后要求退还该附加费用。

网上注册纪录册上的记项 
尽管知识产权署会尽力更新网上的专利和外观设计注册纪录册上的记项,但在特殊个案中仍可能存有差异。如果申请人/所有者留意到自己的专利/外观设计申请或注册的状态未有正确显示在网上的专利/外观设计注册纪录册上,请与知识产权署联络,以便他们跟进并相应地更新记项

如果您对以上内容有任何疑问,请联系杨素满律师 (evelyne.yeung@oln-law.com)。 免责声明:本文仅供参考。高李严律师事务所对任何人因本文所所载的任何内容而行所造成的任何损失和/或损害不承担任何责任。

Filed Under: 知识产权法

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 30
  • Page 31
  • Page 32
  • Page 33
  • Page 34
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 54
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

This website uses cookies to optimise your experience and to collect information to customise content. By closing this banner, clicking a link or continuing to browse otherwise, you agree to the use of cookies. Please read the cookies section of our Privacy Policy to learn more. Learn more

Footer

OLN logo

香港中环雪厂街二号圣佐治大厦
五楼503室

电话 +852 2868 0696 | 电邮我们
关于 律师团队 办事处 OLN IP Services 私隐政策
专业服务 最新消息 加入我们 OLN Online
关于 专业服务 律师团队 最新消息 办事处
加入我们 OLN IP Services OLN Online 私隐政策
linkedin twitter facebook
OLN logo

© 2025 Oldham, Li & Nie. All Rights Reserved.

Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}
联系我们

请在此处分享您的消息的详细信息。我们会尽快与您联系。

    x