OLN

OLN Marketing

遺產規劃與持久授權書

by

您已經規劃了您過世後怎樣處理一生辛苦經營的財富嗎，還是在拖延這件事呢？

死亡是幾乎每個人都害怕的事情，但您不會希望因為未設定一份遺囑，導致沒有辦法按照您的意願來做分配。

讓我們來討論一下設定遺囑需要考慮的事情吧！

首先，您需要確定誰是您的受益人。另外，如果其中一位受益人​​比您先去世，您也需要有一個候補計劃。

第二，您需要選擇一位遺產執行人。遺產執行人是負責向法院申請遺產承辦並在法院批准後，實際執行資產分配的人。例如，他需要與銀行交涉，取出存放在保險箱中的物品，並將現金親手交給所有受益人。

第三，遺囑的儲存方式和地點也是一個需要仔細考慮的問題。

除了設定遺囑之外，如果希望避免因病或意外而失去行為能力（行為能力代表法律設定的某個程度的精神狀態），您可以考慮設定一份持久授權書。

持久授權書只在您在世時有效。它的作用是讓您在失去行為能力時，授權一個能信任的人代表您處理各種財務事宜，包括幫助您處理醫院和醫生的費用，進行房地產交易或解決其他經濟問題。為什麼您自己無法完成這些交易呢？因為一旦銀行知道或懷疑您失去行為能力的時候，他們不會接受您的指示。

總之，遺產規劃可以保護您和您的家人。就算有遺囑，也可能引發遺產爭議。如果沒有遺囑，您所愛的人可能在失去您以後因為情緒高漲而出現矛盾。死亡常常讓愛您的人情緒變得非常波動。

如果您想討論如何規劃您的遺囑，請隨時聯絡我們的律師團隊。

持久性授權書 (EPOA)、監護權和監護

by


當精神健康惡化時，我們應該如何保護家庭財產呢? 香港人的平均壽命越來越長，但隨著這個趨勢，老人家的精神能力也可能會下降。如果缺乏法律規定的精神能力（法律上稱為行為能力），我們無法進行最基本的金錢交易，例如去銀行提款來支付醫院的帳單。

持久授權書

為了避免各種機構和政府部門拒絕接受你對金錢交易的指示，你應該考慮設定一份持久授權書。 根據《持久授權書條例》，持久授權書允許你選擇一位值得信賴的人，在你喪失精神能力時管理財產和財務。

持久授權書生效前，必須滿足一些技術上的要求。最重要的一點是，該文件必須由香港律師見證，並由香港醫生（通常是精神科醫生）認證。醫生會進行行為能力測試，確認你具備法律上指定的精神能力。

為了避免你的持久授權書被挑戰，你應該向你的律師索取建議，是否需要定期評估或每年更新持久授權書。如果在當事人失去行為能力之前尚訂立一份有效的持久授權書，家人需要根據《精神健康條例》第二部分，向法院申請成為受託監管人。這類型的申請需要花的時間比較長和律師費用比較昂貴，受託監管人每年都必須向法院提交關於資金使用的報告。

監護令

持久授權書可以處理財務事宜，而監護令的效用是為失去行為能力的人處理日常護理和生活的事情。 如果你正在考慮設定一份持久授權書或向法院申請監護令，或對遺產規劃的其他方面有任何疑問，請隨時與我們聯繫。

Hong Kong Trade Marks Updates 2026

by

The Trade Marks Registry has introduced a number of updates to its practices and procedures, reflecting developments under the latest edition of the Nice Classification as well as enhancements to filing and examination processes.

Update to search strategies under the 13th Edition of the Nice Classification

With the implementation of the 13th Edition of the Nice Classification, search strategies should be revisited to ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant goods and services. Practitioners are advised to review class headings, explanatory notes, and newly introduced terms, and to conduct broader and more targeted searches where necessary in order to mitigate the risk of citation or opposition based on similar marks in newly refined or reclassified categories.

The implementation of the 13th Edition may affect the class allocation of certain goods and services and, in practice, may require re‑classification for new applications or searches. However, existing registrations are generally not automatically reclassified; instead, the focus under the new edition is on ensuring that specifications and search stratere54gies properly reflect any changes in class allocation. Practitioners should review each specification item‑by‑item against the updated Nice Classification structure and, where appropriate, consider amending or narrowing descriptions to align with the revised class headings and notes.

Declaration of local physical presence by agents

Agents acting in trade mark matters are now required to declare that they maintain a local physical presence in Hong Kong. This requirement reinforces the Registry’s emphasis on ensuring accountability and effective communication within the jurisdiction.

New e‑filing capability for statutory declarations and affidavits

The Registry has expanded its e‑filing capabilities to include statutory declarations and affidavits. Notwithstanding electronic filing, parties are reminded that a copy of any statutory declaration or affidavit must still be served on the opposing party in paper form.

The Registry will also accept the e‑filing of authorities, skeleton arguments, or written submissions for which the parties wish to rely on at the hearing (referred to as “supporting materials”). The service of these supporting materials on the opposing party may be effected in paper form or, where mutually agreed between the parties, by way of electronic storage devices such as USB mass storage devices or portable hard disks with a USB interface.

Clarifications on absolute grounds of refusal under the Trade Marks Registry Work Manual

The updated Work Manual provides further guidance on examination practices in several key areas:

  • Marks contrary to morality or public policy: Greater clarity is provided on the types of marks that may be refused on the basis of being offensive, scandalous, or otherwise inconsistent with accepted societal standards.
  • Deceptive marks: The Registry has elaborated on the assessment of whether a mark has the capacity to mislead the public, particularly in relation to the nature, quality, or geographical origin of the goods or services.
  • Prohibited emblems and Article 6ter signs: Additional guidance is given on the treatment of marks incorporating protected emblems, flags, and insignia, including those covered under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention.
  • Descriptive and non‑distinctive marks: The Manual further clarifies the threshold for distinctiveness and the circumstances in which marks may be considered descriptive or lacking inherent distinctiveness, as well as the evidence required to establish acquired distinctiveness where applicable.

These updates underscore the importance of aligning filing and prosecution strategies with the latest Registry practices to ensure efficient processing and to reduce the risk of objections.

Resources: www.ipd.gov.hk (Trade Marks Registry Work Manual, Trade Marks Ordinance (Cap. 559), Nice Classification (13th Edition), User Guide

for E-Filing System, Terms of Use for Electronic Filing and Communication Services)

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.

Oldham, Li & Nie Announces Promotion of Three New Partners

by

We are pleased to announce the promotion of three senior associates to partnership. The new partners – Gon Yeung and Martin Tse from Tax Advisory and Dispute Resolution practice and Ivan Lee from the Family Law practice – represent the firm’s ongoing commitment to investing in top talent and strengthening its core practices.

The newly promoted partners have made significant contributions to the firm and its clients, demonstrating technical expertise, leadership, and a commitment to delivering high-quality legal services. The promotions support the firm’s strategic growth and reinforce its capabilities in complex contentious matters and private client work.

Commenting on the promotions, Senior Partner Gordon Oldham, said:

“We are delighted to welcome these talented lawyers to the partnership. Each of them embodies the firm’s values of excellence, collaboration, and client commitment, and their promotions reflect both their individual achievements and our continued investment in developing the next generation of OLN leaders.  As we continue to grow, their expertise and fresh perspectives will play an important role in shaping the future of our Tax, Dispute Resolution and Family Law services.”

Essential Guide: Appointing an In-House Head of Computer System Security

by

Hong Kong’s Protection of Critical Infrastructures (Computer Systems) Ordinance (Cap. 653) sets tough standards for Critical Infrastructure Operators (CIOs) to protect their Critical Computer Systems (CCSs) from cyber risks. A key requirement? Appointing a dedicated in-house head to oversee computer system security. This can’t be outsourced—it must be an internal employee for full accountability.

While these guidelines are tailored to CIOs under Cap. 653, they also serve as best practices for employing any high-level management role, ensuring accountability, smooth transitions, and risk mitigation across organizations.

Based on Cap. 653, Code of Practice (v1.0), and insights from the Office of the Commissioner of Critical Infrastructure (Computer-system Security) (OCCICS) website and FAQs, here’s why this role matters and practical HR tips to handle it smoothly.

The Must-Have In-House Role: Why It Can’t Be Outsourced

CIOs need to set up a security management unit and appoint an employee to lead it (s.21(4); Code of Practice §5.3.2). This falls under Category 1 organizational duties.

  • Purpose: To build strong security governance tailored to your CIO’s unique risks.
  • In-House Requirement: The head must have “adequate professional knowledge” specific to your operations (OCCICS FAQ 6). Outsourcing of computer-system security management units is allowed but the head must be an employee appointed by the CIO (OCCICS FAQ 7).
  • Accountability: While suppliers can help with other tasks (via contracts), core oversight stays internal.
  • Risks of Non-Compliance: Fines up to HK$5 million for the organization (ss. 7, 26, 28 and 70)—but no personal penalties for individuals (OCCICS FAQ 24).

With potential designations looming as of January 16, 2026, prioritize this hire now to stay ahead.

HR Essentials: What to Focus On

Managing this role involves blending HR best practices with regulatory needs. Break it down into key areas:

1. Defining the Role and Finding the Right Fit

The head leads the security unit, handling everything from risk assessments to incident responses. This role is not just an IT function but spans cross-business units (BUs), integrating security with operations, finance, legal, and other areas to address enterprise-wide risks.

  • Core Duties: Create and implement a security plan, including access controls, training, and supply chain checks (Code of Practice §§6.2.5–6.2.27). They co-endorse the plan with top executives and review it every two years or after changes.
  • Qualifications Needed: Look for certifications like CISSP, CISM, or CISA, plus experience matching your CCS threats (Code of Practice §5.3.2).

HR Tip: Involve senior management in hiring to align with strategy—they must grasp its importance for compliance, co-endorsement (Code of Practice §6.2.1), and avoiding fines/risks across BUs (OCCICS FAQ 6). Highlight Ordinance and cross-BU aspects in job postings; verify credentials for OCCICS (Annex C of Code of Practice); onboard with team training (Code of Practice §6.2.27).

2. Handling Changes and Notifications

Any shift in this role counts as a “material change” that must be reported, including during employment termination to maintain continuity and avoid compliance gaps.

  • What Triggers Notification: New hires, departures (such as resignations or terminations), or anything affecting security (s.22(1); Annex D of Code of Practice; OCCICS FAQ 8).
  • How to Report: Use Annex C with details like name, qualifications, and start or end date (Code of Practice §5.3.3).

HR Tip: Include notification clauses in contracts; report to OCCICS immediately post-hire or termination. Require advance exit notice, successor planning, and handover to link with exit protocols and prevent disruptions.

3. Understanding Legal Risks for the Employee

The role is high-stakes, but liability is organizational.

  • No Personal Fines: Penalties hit the CIO, not the individual (OCCICS FAQ 24).
  • Internal Protections: Clear duties help avoid blame in disputes.

HR Tip: Add indemnity clauses (excluding wilful errors); link reviews to security goals for accountability, trust, and lower turnover.

4. Managing Exits: Termination, Garden Leave, and Handovers

Smooth transitions are crucial to maintain continuity (Category 1).

  • Key Concerns: Sudden exits could disrupt operations and require immediate reporting.
  • No Fixed Rules: But longer notice periods help with knowledge transfer.

HR Tip: Use 3–6 month notice periods for handovers (data/knowledge transfer, successor training); apply garden leave for secrecy (s.57, up to HK$1M fines); limit non-competes to sensitive data; ensure pay and audit support.

Wrapping Up: Make It a Smart Move

View this appointment as a boost to your cyber defenses, not just compliance. Keep detailed HR records—they can back due diligence defenses (ss.65–66).

For custom advice, reach out to Oldham Li & Nie. Aligning HR with Cap. 653 now strengthens your position in Hong Kong’s evolving critical infrastructure landscape.

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.

Are You Ready for Madrid?

by

Are you ready for Madrid – not for a relaxing holiday or to watch your favourite football team, but to extend your trade mark (brand) protection internationally.

In this context, “Madrid” refers to the Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks, an international framework administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”). The system enables the trade mark owners to seek protection in multiple jurisdictions through a single application filed in one language, under one set of fees, thereby streamlining the international filing process and reducing administrative burdens.

Madrid System and Hong Kong: Current Position

At present, it is not yet possible to designate Hong Kong under the Madrid System, nor to file an international trade mark application through the Hong Kong Trade Marks Registry. The Hong Kong Government enacted the Trade Marks (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 to establish the legal framework for implementing the Madrid Protocol, but the relevant provisions will only take effect on a date to be appointed once all necessary preparatory work has been completed.

Recent government policy updates confirm that preparatory work for Hong Kong’s participation in the Madrid Protocol remains ongoing, and that implementation will only commence after the completion of legislative, IT and related arrangements. As of early 2026, no official commencement date or target year has been announced, and there is still no confirmed timetable for when the Madrid System will be extended to Hong Kong.

In anticipation of Hong Kong’s future participation in the Madrid System, it is helpful to understand the key filing requirements.

Basic Requirements for a Madrid Application

1. Eligibility

To use the Madrid System, an applicant must have a real and effective connection with at least one Madrid member. You will qualify if you:

  • are a national of, domiciled in, or have an industrial or commercial establishment in a Madrid member; and
  • have already filed or registered a trade mark (the “basic mark”) with the IP office of that member (the “Office of Origin”).

2. Basic mark requirement

Before filing an international application, you must already have filed or registered a national or regional trade mark in your Office of Origin. This “basic mark” must:

  • be the same mark;
  • be owned by the same proprietor; and
  • cover goods and/or services that are identical to, or narrower than, those claimed in the international application.

3. International application

The international application must:

  • be filed through the Office of Origin (not sent directly to WIPO);
  • use the prescribed WIPO form MM2 or a recognised e‑filing tool such as eMadrid or the Madrid Application Assistant;
  • match the particulars of the basic mark (owner details, mark representation, goods/services); and
  • designate at least one Madrid member, with payment of the WIPO basic fee plus the relevant per‑member or per‑class fees.

4. Examination and Grant of Protection

Once your Office of Origin has certified and forwarded the international application, WIPO conducts a formalities examination only, checking fees, classification and technical compliance. If the application does not comply, WIPO issues an irregularity notice to you and the Office of Origin, usually allowing a limited period (commonly three months) to correct the deficiencies.

If the formal requirements are met, WIPO records the mark in the International Register, publishes it in the WIPO Gazette of International Marks, issues a Certificate of International Registration, and notifies each designated IP office. Each designated national or regional office then carries out its own substantive examination under local trade mark law and must grant or refuse protection within a prescribed time limit, typically 12 or 18 months from notification.

If the mark is accepted, it is protected in that jurisdiction as if registered directly at the national or regional office. If protection is provisionally refused, you may need to appoint local counsel in that jurisdiction to respond or appeal in accordance with local procedures.

How to Protect Your Trade Mark in Hong Kong Now

As Hong Kong has not yet implemented the Madrid System, trade mark protection in Hong Kong can only be obtained by filing a separate application directly with the Hong Kong Trade Marks Registry.

At this stage, Hong Kong cannot be designated in an international registration under the Madrid System, and international applications cannot be filed through the Hong Kong Registry as an Office of Origin.

Where brand owners are also seeking protection in other jurisdictions that are members of the Madrid System, they will typically need to pursue two parallel routes:

  • file a standalone local application in Hong Kong for protection in the Hong Kong market; and
  • either file separate national or regional applications in other territories, or, where available, make use of the Madrid System via an eligible Office of Origin outside Hong Kong (for example, through an associated company or establishment in a Madrid member country).

This approach reflects the current reality: Hong Kong remains a separate, locally‑filed registration, while the Madrid System may be used only for those jurisdictions where it is already in force and where the applicant otherwise meets the eligibility requirements.

Getting Ready for Madrid in Hong Kong

As Hong Kong moves toward future implementation of the Madrid Protocol, it is prudent for brand owners to ensure that their key marks are already filed and registered in Hong Kong so that they can satisfy Madrid eligibility requirements once the system becomes available locally.

Our firm would be pleased to assist you with filing and maintaining trade mark registrations in Hong Kong and with developing an international filing strategy to take full advantage of the Madrid System when it is launched here.

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.