由高李严律师行的注册海外律师(英格兰和威尔士)Peter McCullough篇写的文章“乘客向航空公司起诉最不寻常的事情”于《商业旅行者》杂志刊登。
Test Blog
CNIPA – Answers to Handle Trademark Matters during COVID-19
The National Intellectual Property Administration, PRC (“CNIPA”) published “Answers to Handle Trademark Matters during the Epidemic Period of the Novel Coronavirus” on 6 February 2020.
1. What kind of trademark matters that can be applied for suspension?
If the applicants/petitioners/registrants (“Relevant Party”) cannot meet deadlines of the following trademark matters due to the epidemic period, the relevant deadlines shall be suspended from the date when the obstacle to exercise the rights is occurred until the obstacle is removed.
- Response to correction /amendments
- Response to examiners’ opinions
- Payment of official fees
- Submitting user evidence and outcome of negotiation for applications filed on the same day
- Responses to non-use cancellation actions
- Filling oppositions
- Review of refusal
- Review of opposition decision
- Review of invalidation decision
- Review, response and supplementary submission of non-use cancellation actions
2. What does it mean “the date when the obstacle to exercise the rights is occurred” and “the date when the obstacle to exercise the rights is removed”?
- The date when the obstacle to exercise the rights is occurred refers to the day that the Relevant Party is hospitalized or quarantined because of infection of the novel coronavirus, or the day that the trademark matters cannot be normally handled because of the Relevant Party’s local preventions and control measures during the epidemic period.
- The date when the obstacle to exercise the rights is removed refers to the day that the Relevant Party’s hospitalization or quarantine due to infection of the novel coronavirus is concluded, or the day that the Relevant Party’s local public work restriction/personnel control is ended.
3. How to apply for suspension?
The Relevant Party shall file a written application for the suspension when dealing with the above-mentioned trademark matters with the CNIPA. The written application shall list out the relevant region where the Relevant Party is located during the epidemic period, the reasons of the obstacle and the date of removal of the obstacle, and the relevant certification materials thereof.
4. What kinds of certification materials are required in support of the application for suspension?
The Relevant Party shall provide material with proof of infection treatment, or quarantine, or period of control, except the delay that is under the delayed resumption of work announced by the local government.
To reduce the burden of the Relevant Party affected by the epidemic period, only one set of the certification materials is required when requesting for suspension to multiple applications for the same trademark matters. The documents can be filed under one case number with the other case numbers indicated in the same application for suspension.
5. What should the registrants do if they fail to renew their trademark timely?
Failure to file application for renewal of trademark within the grace period due to the epidemic period would lead to loss of the trademark rights, unless the registrants file application for renewal of the trademark within 2 months from the day that the obstacle is removed with support of the certification materials as referred to in Point 4 above.
Information in Chinese from CNIPA can be found in the following link: http://sbj.cnipa.gov.cn/gzdt/202002/t20200206_311115.html?from=timeline&isappinstalled=0
Should you have any trademark matters encountered obstacles during the novel coronavirus epidemic period, please contact evelyne.yeung@oln-law.com or angel.luo@oln-law.com and we will be pleased to answer and assist.
Employers’ Obligations during the Outbreak of Infectious Disease
The outbreak of coronavirus in mainland China has crippled business operations across the country as the central government scrambles to control the spread, including ordering lockdowns of a number of cities. In Hong Kong, many companies have also implemented health and safety measures for staff in the wake of the epidemic.
This article discusses the general obligations of employers during the outbreak of infectious disease, possible measures they can adopt and potential liabilities on failure to do so.
1. Current measures put in place by the government and corporations in Hong Kong
The SAR government has advised that government employees could work from home depending on the departmental arrangements. A host of government services, including court hearings, are suspended for the time being.
In an effort to contain the spread of the coronavirus, the SAR government also ordered closing of all the city’s border crossings, except for the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge, the Shenzhen Bay Port and the airport and has implemented, with effect from 8 Feb 2020, a mandatory 14-day quarantine for all persons (including Hong Kong residents) arriving in Hong Kong from mainland China.
Many Hong Kong corporations have taken similar measures to allow staff the flexibility of home office. Local banks have also closed a substantial number of branch operations to avoid the spread of the coronavirus. In the retail and food and beverage industries, where provision of services must be maintained, service providers have stepped up on precautionary measures, such as wearing masks carrying out more frequent cleanings.
2. General obligations on employers
Under common law, an employer has an implied duty to provide a safe working environment. This means that an employer must take reasonable steps to ensure that the equipment, premises and systems of work used in its place of business are safe1.
Legislation-wise, the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance (“OSHO”) imposes a duty on employers to ensure safety and health of employees at work2while the Factories and Undertakings Ordinance has specific application to industrial work environments.
Employers should take steps to maintain any workplace under their control in a condition that is safe and without health risks as far as reasonably practicable. The obligation also includes provision of information, precaution instructions and safety device and equipment as may be necessary to ensure employees have the means and knowledge to work healthy and safely.
The law does not require employers to absolute ensure health and safety in the workplace, but only to the extent that such measures are reasonably practicable and have been duly performed.
In complying with statutory obligations, employers should issue health and safety guidelines to staff, reminding them of proper precautionary measures to take to protect themselves against infections, such as personal hygiene and correct use and disposal of masks etc.
Frontline staff having close interactions with mass customers or higher chance to be contaminated with virus due to the environment (e.g. cleaners) should be provided with necessary safety equipment at work, e.g. surgical masks, hand sanitizers and hand gloves.
In the view of outbreak of a dreadful virus, the employers shall also consider the need for face-to-face working arrangements, like internal and external meetings and the general hygiene and cleanliness of the workplace.
3. Non-compliance issue and potential liabilities
Employers intentionally or recklessly fails to provide a safe workplace without health risks may be made liable on conviction to a fine of $200,000 and imprisonment for 6 months3.
It is important for companies to build and maintain a good reputation for business sustainability and be socially responsible. To this end, any failure to ensure staff safety and health may cause erosion of trust in employees, damaging morale in the office and adversely affecting business efficiency.
It can be equally, if not more, destructive to business if clients or consumers consider a business is neglecting social responsibility and staff care and support. To maintain clients’ and employees’ loyalty, companies should be mindful of the messages they send to the public, usually by social media, in the court of putting measures in place.
4. What can be done but also maintain works and services?
As far as it is practicable, companies should consider contingency plans which may include the flexibility to allow employees to work from home and reduce the need for physical meetings.
For critical roles that must be performed in office, reduced headcount by way of shifts could be a solution.
Home office can only be effective if employees are provided with necessary tools to work from home, including efficient communication channels, and there are instructions and procedural guidelines on what employees should do and how they can report. it is essential for the supervisors and subordinates to have regular interval update or communications to ensure works and services are maintained.
There should also be reporting requirements on employees to disclose any travel history where necessary and liaise with management for self-quarantine in order to safeguard the health and safety of co-workers.
5. Some Q&As for the employers
i. Do I have to continue to pay wages and benefits during the novel coronavirus outbreak?
Yes, but it depends:

ii. Can I impose annual leave on my employees?
Yes, but it depends:

iii. Can I impose unpaid leave on my employees?
Unpaid leave cannot be imposed by the employer, unless otherwise agreed by the employees.
iv. Can I require my employees and clients to have their temperature tested or wear masks before allowing them to enter the workplace?
It is generally lawful for an employer to ask its employees and clients to undergo a temperature test or wear face masks on a voluntary basis if there is a reasonable basis for doing so.
The screening of employees and clients would likely be considered a reasonable step for an employer to take to reduce the risk of its employees and visitors to the workplace being exposed to harm, given the fact that an employer has the statutory obligation to maintain a healthy and safe workplace. In principle, an employer may reasonably deny access to the workplace for employees or clients who do not comply with such requirement.
Temperature testing may, however, raise issues of data privacy. As such, employers should be mindful of the data protection rules in relation to the purpose and manner of the collection of such data.
We are happy to discuss with employers further on the practical health and safety precautions during the outbreak of infectious diseases.
This article is for reference only. Nothing herein shall be construed as any formal 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.
If you have any question regarding the topic discussed or on other employment issues, please contact victor.ng@oln-law.com.
1 Wong Wai Ming v Hospital Authority [2001] 3 HKLRD 209
2 Section 6(1), OSHO.
3 Section 6(4), OSHO.
6 unusual things passengers have sued airlines for

Nowadays, flying is part and parcel of business and leisure travel. We take it for granted.But unusual events can occur, and sometimes claims are made against the airline when injury and loss is suffered as a result.
Below are examples of some of the strangest things that have people claimed for. Happy reading.
1. Nervous passengers. I handled a case defending a European airline that routinely played pop music to greet its passengers as they boarded the aircraft. Unbeknown to a passenger with a fear of flying, the airline in question (inadvertently) was playing ‘killing me softly’ by The Fugees as she made her way to her seat. Needless to say, this did not go down well with the passenger who brought proceedings against the airline, only to lose her case as the applicable air law convention does not compensate passengers for a mild psychiatric episode in the absence of any physical injury.
2. Insect bites – in particular spiders and scorpions. These claims are increasingly common, particularly in the US. Allegations made against the airlines typically include a suggestion that the airline failed to maintain a safe environment for its passengers, owing them a duty of care. Being bitten by an insect amounts to a breach of that duty. Bed bugs are another source of controversy, especially where the airline is marketing a sleeper-type suite in a premium cabin.
3. Turbulence claims. An airline is strictly liable for proven passenger damages up to 128,821 SDR’s (so, roughly USD 177,000 in real money). This means that a passenger does not necessarily have to establish that the airline was at fault, and it is a little-known fact that an airline will often pay out for this type of event. Injuries sustained in serious turbulence incidents can include broken bones and head injuries, requiring hospital treatment on arrival.
4. Visa irregularities. I handled a case involving a passenger who travelled on a 12-hour flight to Johannesburg, but was denied entry to South Africa and had to return home on the same aircraft she had arrived on. The check-in assistant at the departure airport failed to spot that the passenger did not have a spare blank page on her passport large enough to accommodate the South African entry visa. Needless to say, this did not go down well with the passenger who had purchased a return business class ticket!
5. Being used by a hostile state as a human shield. I helped to defend a major European airline that was caught up in the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. An allegation was made by a group of passengers that the airline had deliberately delayed the flight’s departure and flew into a war zone in order place a squadron of specialist troops into Kuwait. Ultimately the claim was defended on the basis that there was no ‘accident’ in the strict sense as defined by the applicable air law convention. Also, most of the passengers were complaining of psychiatric conditions only, and in most cases physical injuries were absent.
6. Obese fellow passengers. Funny, but it’s true. There have been a number of claims brought against airlines by passengers who have suffered injury caused by the ‘encroachment’ or ‘spillover’ from those sat immediately next to them. Passengers affected in this way need to establish that being sat next to an obese fellow passenger amounted to an ‘unusual or unexpected’ event.
Contact
To discuss any issues raised by this article, or any other issues relating to an aviation commercial dispute then please contact Gordon Oldham (Senior Partner) at gdoldham@oln-law.com.
*Disclaimer – the views expressed in this article are those of the writer, and not necessarily those of the firm.
Oldham Li & Nie achieves high rankings in Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2020

We are delighted to announce Oldham, Li & Nie has again been highly ranked in the Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2020 directory.
OLN been recommended in the following 2 practice areas:
HONG KONG
- Intellectual property
- Labour and employment
2 lawyers are recommended in The Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2020 editorial (listed below):
HONG KONG
Excellent comments are recieved from the researchers:
Intellectual property
Led by the experienced Vera Sung, Oldham, Li & Nie‘s ‘responsive‘ five-strong team provides ‘very appropriate advice‘ to local SMEs and larger international businesses across a range of contentious and non-contentious IP issues. The firm is particularly active in the publishing, retail and travel sectors and regularly acts for respondents and claimants in trade mark and passing-off actions.
Labour and employment
Headed by newly promoted partner Jade Tang, Oldham, Li & Nie‘s employment team maintains a significant offering across both contentious and non-contentious matters for employees and employers from a range of industry sectors, including financial services and banking. Leveraging her corporate and commercial background, Tang has particular expertise advising on non-contentious matters, including on the employment issues associated with corporate reorganisations.
The Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2020 is now available to view online. You can view the results at http://www.legal500.com/firms/30993/offices/30842
高李严律师行当选为企业法务联盟推荐的年度企业

高李严律师行当选为2019年企业法务联盟推荐的年度企业 (知识产权,香港)。该奖项旨在表彰我们为內部法律顾问和香港法律服务购买者提供的优质法律服务。
关于企业法务联盟
企业法务联盟是一个旨在帮助法务和合规专业人员在企业内履行其道德、法律和业务职责道德的团体。企业法务联盟的成员为亚洲和中东地区的企业的法务以及提供合规和其他相关法律服务的机构。企业法务联盟于1998年成立,目前约有21,000名成员。该联盟每年举办16场企业法务大会,并主办亚洲法律顾问杂志和相关网站。