OLN

intellectual property

Recent updates on IP practices in Hong Kong

by

1. IPD new forms

The Intellectual Property Department (“IPD”) of Hong Kong has announced that a new set of Trade Marks Forms, Patents Forms and Designs Forms (“the new forms”) will be effective from 16 May 2025.

A key feature of all the new forms is the inclusion of a declaration requiring agents to confirm their local physical presence and residency or their engagement in business activities at the specified address in Hong Kong.

Additionally, the forms include a warning that providing false information or declarations constitutes an offence. The primary purpose of this requirement is to mitigate the risk of missed communications or deadlines if an agent lacks a physical presence in Hong Kong.

Therefore, IP owners should ensure they engage an agent with an actual physical presence in Hong Kong, rather than one that merely maintains a mailing address without conducting business activities.

Another notable feature of some of the new forms—specifically T8, T10, T11, P9, P10, P19, D5, and D11 – is the addition of data fields to capture the type and place of incorporation of IP owners, grantees, licensees/sub-licensees, mortgagees, and other relevant parties. This enhancement is designed to facilitate due diligence processes in relation to IP transactions.

IPD has provided the draft versions of the new forms for information purpose, see https://www.ipd.gov.hk/en/home/whats-new/index_id_628.html.

2. Absolute Grounds for Refusal of Trade Marks

IPD has revised the Chapter on “Absolute Grounds for Refusal of Trade Marks” with the aim to elaborating the Registry’s examination practice primarily focus on Sections 11(4)(a), 11(4)(b) and Section 11(5)(a) of Trade Marks Ordinance, summarize as follows:

Section 11(4)(a) –

marks contrary to accepted principles of morality, if the marks are: –

  • Offensive or vulgar
  • Threatening national security
  • Containing offensive or hateful content
  • Imitating official symbols
  • Containing references to tragedies or disturbing events

Section 11(4)(b) –

marks that are likely to deceive, if they: –

  • contain words “made/made in/imported from” or “exported from” a geographical place but in fact the goods are imported/exported from or made elsewhere; or
  • suggested official approval but without any actual endorsement.

Section 11(5)(a) –

use prohibited in Hong Kong by virtue of any law, if:

  • the use of the trade mark constitutes an offence under the PRC Law on Safeguarding National Security in the HKSAR and/or the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance.

Our firm could assist clients to assess the chance of refusal of the intended trade mark on the above grounds as well as other grounds before filing to avoid potential refusal of the marks.

3. Shortening the time of issuing hearing notice

Previously, IPD often took a year or more to schedule a hearing after the close of pleadings. However, in recent trends, IPD has significantly reduced the time required to issue a hearing notice, often scheduling hearings in less than a year. In some cases, hearing notices are issued within just one or two months.

This improvement is beneficial, as it allows parties involved in proceedings to anticipate a faster resolution of their cases, ensuring a more efficient legal process.

How We Can Help

As a Hong Kong law firm, we can serve as the client’s authorized agent in handling the registration of their IP rights, including the preparation and submission of the necessary IP forms to the IPD.  Additionally, we provide expert assistance in assessing the risk of trade mark refusal based on various legal grounds. By conducting this evaluation before filing, we help minimize the likelihood of rejection and ensure full compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

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.

Beijing Internet Court: A Landmark in China’s Legal System for Cyber Disputes

by

The Beijing Internet Court (“BIC”), established on September 9, 2018, stands as a pioneering institution in the global legal landscape, designed to address the growing challenges posed by the digital economy. As one of the first courts in the world dedicated entirely to internet-related disputes, it represents a significant step forward in adapting legal frameworks to the realities of the digital age. In the first 4 years, the BIC has concluded 150,000 cases. 

Background and Purpose

In China, where e-commerce, digital communication, and online platforms have expanded at an unprecedented rate, disputes related to the internet have surged. From intellectual property rights violations and contract disputes to online defamation and cybersecurity concerns, these cases often involve complex technical issues and a need for specialized legal expertise.

To address this, the Chinese government established the Beijing Internet Court with the aim of providing a streamlined, efficient, and transparent legal process for resolving internet-related cases. Its creation is part of a broader effort to improve the legal environment for internet development, as well as to ensure that the rule of law keeps pace with rapid technological advancements.

Jurisdiction and Scope

The Beijing Internet Court primarily handles four types of cases:

Online Purchase Contracts that signed online through e-platform;Online services contracts signed, performed online;Loan agreement online contracts;Copyright dispute published online.

Samples of cases :  

  1. Disputes arising from the conclusion or performance of online shopping contracts through e-commerce platforms;
  2. Online service contract disputes where the conclusion and performance are completed on the Internet;
  3. Disputes over financial loan contracts and small loan contracts where the conclusion and performance are completed on the Internet;
  4. Disputes over the ownership of copyright or neighboring rights of works published on the Internet for the first time;
  5. Disputes arising from the infringement of copyright or neighboring rights on the Internet of works published or communicated online;
  6. Disputes over Internet domain name ownership, infringement and contracts;
  7. Disputes arising from the infringement of the personal rights, property rights or other civil rights of others on the Internet;
  8. Product liability disputes arising from the infringement of the personal or property rights of others due to the defects of products purchased through an e-commerce platform;
  9. Internet public interest litigations filed by the procurator;
  10. Administrative disputes arising from administrative actions taken by administrative organs such as Internet information service management, Internet commodity trading and relevant service management;
  11. Other Internet civil and administrative cases designated by the people’s court at a higher level.

Technological Integration and Innovations

One of the most notable features of the BIC is its embrace of technology. The court uses various digital tools to streamline the judicial process and make it more accessible to both parties and the public:

  • Online Filing and Proceedings: Litigants can file cases, submit evidence, and attend hearings online, making the process more efficient and accessible, especially for those located far from Beijing.
  • E-Evidence: In many internet-related disputes, traditional forms of evidence such as physical documents are not always available. The BIC has pioneered the use of digital evidence, such as screenshots, website records, and blockchain-based data, to support claims.
  • AI Assistance: The court has incorporated AI tools to help with case management and even provide initial judgments on simpler cases. This technology helps expedite decision-making and reduce the administrative burden on judges.

These innovations reflect China’s broader efforts to modernize its legal system and make it more efficient in the face of new challenges posed by digital technologies.

Transparency and Accessibility

The BIC is also notable for its commitment to transparency. In line with China’s push to modernize its judicial system, the court makes its proceedings and rulings publicly available online. The court has even adopted a system for livestreaming trials, allowing citizens and legal professionals to observe the process in real time. This openness is intended to enhance public trust in the judicial process and ensure accountability.

Additionally, the use of online dispute resolution platforms provides an easy-to-access method for parties to resolve conflicts without the need for physical court appearances. This is especially important in a country as large as China, where access to courts can sometimes be geographically prohibitive.

Impact on Global Legal Systems

The BIC’s establishment has had a significant influence on the development of cyber law. China’s approach to internet-related legal matters also raises important questions about the role of the state in regulating the internet.

For global businesses, the BIC presents both challenges and opportunities. On one hand, companies operating in China must navigate a legal system that is closely integrated with government policy and regulatory frameworks. On the other hand, the court’s specialization offer a more predictable environment for resolving disputes, particularly those related to e-commerce and intellectual property.

Conclusion

The BIC offers a new model for addressing internet-related disputes. Its integration of technology, commitment to transparency, and focus on efficiency make it a significant step in the evolution of the Chinese legal system.

For more information you may refer to the BIC’s official website at Beijing Internet Court

OLN IP – Vera Sung (vera.sung@oln-ip.com) and Angel Luo (angel.luo@oln-ip.com)

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.

How Hong Kong’s Legal System Protects Your Creative Works on Online Sharing Platforms

by

Online sharing platforms (OSP), like YouTube and TikTok, have revolutionized the distribution of creative works. While these OSP provide unprecedented opportunities for exposure, they also present significant risks of copyright infringement. Notably, infringers have taken advantage of the borderless nature of the Internet, believing either that their actions are extraterritorial and beyond legal reach, or that copyright owners are unlikely to pursue legal action in the foreign jurisdictions where these infringers reside. Infringers who believe they can act with impunity have inflicted significant harm on copyright owners.

Where the infringement occurs on an OSP, a request may be made by the copyright owner for the removal of the infringing contents. Due to the unregistrable nature of copyright, the OSP may require copyright owners to initiate legal action as further proof of ownership. However, an OSP would usually not express on the specific jurisdiction in which such legal action should be filed.

Choosing the right jurisdiction

There are potentially three options a copyright owner may choose.

A common belief is that a copyright owner may only sue the infringer in accordance with the jurisdiction clause in the Terms and Conditions with the OSP. However, since there is no privity of contract between the owner and the infringer, the jurisdiction clause is likely to be irrelevant.

On the other hand, as copyright is territorial in nature, copyright owners are often advised to pursue legal action in the jurisdiction where the infringer is domiciled. This approach has the apparent advantage of making it difficult for the infringer to evade legal proceedings and enforcement. However, many copyright owners may hesitate to take this route due to their unfamiliarity with the specific foreign legal system, as well as the disconnect between the economic loss incurred and the forum chosen for the lawsuit. Additionally, infringers may intentionally exploit the subtle differences in copyright regimes.

Another option is to initiate legal action in the jurisdiction where the copyright owner is based or has a business presence. Traditionally, it was believed that actions taken abroad could not infringe upon local intellectual property rights, making this option seem unviable.  However, given the borderless nature of the Internet, it is increasingly accepted that the “targeting” of residents within a jurisdiction should be regarded as an act occurring within that jurisdiction. For instance, in the recent English case of Entertainment One UK Ltd & Anor v Sconnect Co Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 3295 (Ch), the English Court acknowledged its jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute involving IP infringements on an OSP where the consumers in the UK were specifically targeted, even though the alleged infringer was based in Vietnam.

Once the option to sue in jurisdictions other than the infringer’s hometown becomes available, pursuing legal action in Hong Kong can be a strategic choice if the copyright owner is based in Hong Kong or if the economic value of their creative works is realized here.

Hong Kong’s advantages in safeguarding copyright

At the heart of Hong Kong’s copyright protection is the Copyright Ordinance, which extends to various forms of creative expression, including music, art, literature, and audiovisual content. This legislation grants creators exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and publicly display their works. Under the Copyright Ordinance, no registration is required. Hong Kong also adopts an open system which does not require the claimant to be domiciled or incorporated in Hong Kong.

Where the infringer is domiciled in another jurisdiction, the Court needs to consider whether it should extend its authority to a body outside its jurisdiction. In such case, Order 11 Rule 1(1)(f) of the Rules of the High Court provides a suitable jurisdictional gateway. This rule permits a claim based on a tort to be served on the defendant outside of the jurisdiction if the damage was sustained or resulted from an act committed within Hong Kong.

As explained, “targeting” may now be considered an act within Hong Kong. If Hong Kong customers are targeted, this may also lead to a loss incurred in Hong Kong since the Hong Kong customers may now prefer the infringing content over the infringed content. While the law requires that such loss should be “significant”, there is no requirement for the copyright owner operating in multiple jurisdictions to demonstrate that Hong Kong is the sole or primary location of those losses.

Even if the above is satisfied, the Court still has a discretionary power to decline jurisdiction, especially when there is a more appropriate forum for the specific case. In Entertainment One UK Ltd, the English Court has taken into account the following in finally accepting jurisdiction:

  • The location where the copyright was created or implemented
  • The location where the loss is primarily incurred
  • The location of relevant witnesses

Depending on the objectives of the claimant, an OSP may sometimes only require the commencement of legal action as proof of ownership. In such case, a claimant in Hong Kong may opt to file a writ without further pursuing the matter by serving the writ on the defendant. If the writ remains unserved within one year from the date of its filing, it will automatically expire without any consequences to the claimant.

Conclusion

While navigating jurisdictional complexities can sometimes be daunting, copyright owners can strategically choose where to initiate legal action based on critical factors such as the locations of the owner and the infringer, the nature of their losses, and their imminent and long-term objectives.

In particular, when the infringing act or content in question is connected to Hong Kong, the evolving interpretation of “targeting” enhances the prospects for legal redress in the region. This shift allows copyright owners to leverage local legislation more effectively, ensuring their rights are protected against infringement in this increasingly borderless world.

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.

Strategies for Managing Parallel Imports and Protecting Distribution Rights in Hong Kong

by

In Hong Kong, the importation of parallel goods or unauthorized products across territory that compete with authorized distribution channels does not constitute trademark infringement.

However, an exception to the international exhaustion rule exists if the condition of parallel-imported goods has changed or been impaired after being put on the global market. In such cases, the reputation or distinctiveness of the trademark may be adversely affected (refer to Section 20(1) of the Hong Kong Trade Marks Ordinance (Cap. 559)). This exception can pose challenges, especially in exclusive distribution relationships.

Exclusive distributors often face difficulties in enforcing their rights against parallel importers unless the products are defective or deteriorated. Moreover, legal mechanisms such as the tort of passing off may not offer adequate protection to authorized distributors, particularly when misrepresentation is hard to prove for goods originating from the original owner or overseas authorized dealer.

To address these challenges, it is crucial to include specific provisions in distribution agreements:

  • Addressing Parallel Imports:
    Distribution agreements, especially those with exclusive distributors, should empower the distributor to enforce their rights within agreed territories.
  • Intellectual Property Rights:
    Clearly define rights related to intellectual property, including designs and artwork created by the distributor, to ensure that the distributor benefits exclusively from such creations.
  • Enforcement of IP Rights:
    Define and clarify the distributor’s right to enforce intellectual property rights in case of infringement and outline associated cost and compensation.

To further protect the distributor’s interests beyond contractual agreements, the following measures may be considered:

  • Differentiation:
    Label parallel import goods distinctly from authorized products, potentially by adding the distributor’s mark to enable customers to recognize the distributor’s trademark.
  • Quality Differentiation:
    Enhance the quality of authorized goods compared to parallel imports, such as tailoring products for local or Asian markets.
  • Trademark Infringement:
    Highlight that the use of a distributor’s registered trademark by a parallel importer constitutes trademark infringement.

Depending on the nature of the goods, particularly health supplements, customers may prioritize warranties and services offered with authorized versions.

Apart from the above, there are non-legal strategies to protect and promote distributed goods, such as:

  • Digital Marketing:
    Incorporate the distributor’s link on the owner’s website to direct customers to authorized channels.
  • Customer Communication:
    Warn customers on the distributor’s website about risks associated with unauthorized purchases.
  • Customer Engagement:
    Enhance relationships through loyalty programs and personalized marketing.
  • Marketing Initiatives:
    Conduct awareness campaigns to educate customers on the benefits of purchasing from authorized distributors.

While it may be challenging to entirely eliminate parallel imports, distributors can take action by sending cease-and-desist letters to parallel importers and emphasizing their exclusive distribution rights.

Ultimately, controlling parallel imports within the agreed territories is a contractual matter that requires collaboration between distributors and owners for effective resolution.

OLN can assist distributors and trademark owners in protecting their interests against parallel imports in Hong Kong. Please contact us for more information.

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.

OLN is Featured as Highly Recommended Law Firm in the Asialaw 2024 Profiles

by

We are pleased to announce that Oldham, Li & Nie has been again ‘Highly recommended’ by asialaw.

asialaw have ranked Oldham, Li & Nie for the following practice areas:

  • Dispute Resolution – Highly recommended
  • Intellectual Property – Highly Recommended
  • Corporate and M&A – Recommended
  • Labour & Employment – Recommended
  • Private Client – Notable
  • Restructuring and Insolvency – Notable

Additionally, Oldham, Li & Nie has been recommended in the following industry sectors:

  • Insurance – Recommended
  • Technology and Telecommunications – Recommended

Oldham, Li & Nie’s partners have also received 5 recognitions in their respective practice areas:

  • Gordon Oldham is recognised as a Senior Statesman in Dispute Resolution
  • Richard Healy is recognised as a Notable Practitioner in Dispute Resolution
  • Tracy Yip is recognised as a Distinguished Practitioner in Corporate and M&A
  • Vera Sung is recognised as a Distinguished Practitioner in Intellectual Property
  • Anna Chan is recognised as a Rising Star in Tax and Private Client

For more information and detailed analysis, please visit Oldham, Li & Nie’s profile on asialaw: https://www.asialaw.com/Firm/oldham-li-nie-hong-kong-sar/Profile/1112#profile

OLN has also been shortlisted in two categories for asialaw awards 2024:

  • Oldham, Li & Nie – Hong Kong Law Firm of the Year
  • Anna Chan – Hong Kong Female Lawyer of the Year

About asialaw

asialaw is the only legal directory featuring comprehensive analysis on Asia’s regional and domestic firms, and leading lawyers from the region.

In addition to the asialaw rankings guide, the directory publishes awards shortlists and winners recognising the best firms in Asia.

More information about asialaw, please visit https://www.asialaw.com/