OLN

Test Blog

OLN “Legal Eagles” Take on the Peak Race 2025: Running for Freedom

by

OLN is proud to announce that our team, the “Legal Eagles”, will participate in the Peak Race 2025 in Hong Kong! Set for Saturday, 22 March 2025, this inspiring race, organised by 24 Hour Race, aims to raise awareness and funds to combat human trafficking and modern-day slavery, while empowering youth and supporting at-risk children in Thailand.

OLN team is lacing up not just to race but to actively support the cause through fundraising efforts. This year, we will directly support The Freedom Story , an organisation dedicated to protecting vulnerable children in Thailand from trafficking and exploitation.

With your generous support, we can help fund initiatives that will create long-term, life-changing impact:

1. Educational scholarships

Keeping vulnerable children in school by covering tuition and school supplies.

2. Financial management training

Empowering families with the skills to manage resources and build financial stability.

3. Youth leadership camps

Equipping young leaders to educate their peers through anti-trafficking outreach programs.

4. Mentorship programs

Providing emotional support and guidance to children facing crisis situations.

Gordon Oldham, our Senior Partner and an avid ultramarathon runner, shared his enthusiasm: “I’m thrilled that OLN is supporting such a great initiative. As both a runner and organiser of numerous Hong Kong trail races, I’ve seen first-hand the immense dedication and effort that goes into making a race happen – especially for a meaningful cause. I’m proud to be part of it this year.”

How You Can Help

We invite you to stand with us in the fight against human trafficking. You can contribute by:

  1. Donating – Every contribution is tax-deductible and, big or small, makes a direct impact on a vulnerable child’s future.
  2. Spreading the word – Share our fundraising page with your friends, family, and colleagues to expand our reach.

If you wish to donate, click here.

OLN’s Commitment to Community

Our participation in the Peak Race 2025 is part of OLN’s broader dedication to corporate citizenship. Beyond the legal world, we dedicate ourselves to our community – whether it’s through providing pro bono legal services to the elderly via our partnerships with Helping Hand, SAGE and other organisations, or participating in environmental sustainability projects.

At OLN, we believe our responsibility extends beyond legal practice. We are committed to making a difference where it is needed most – supporting vulnerable communities and fostering positive change in Hong Kong and beyond.

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.

不同司法管轄區有關體外人工受孕的法規簡介

by

(這篇文章發表在 2025年二月香港律師會會刊)

體外人工受孕（IVF）已經成為輔助生育技術的基石，為同性夫婦、單身人士、不孕不育的夫婦及／或高風險孕婦帶來希望。隨著醫療科學進步，此程序已變得更加可及，成功率也越來越高。然而，世界各地有關 IVF 的法律架構卻有很大差異。本文將探討 IVF 在多個司法管轄區的法律狀況，突顯主要法規、倫理考量及社會影響。

IVF 的重要性日益提升

IVF 始於 1978 年世界上第一個「試管嬰兒」Louise Joy Brown 的誕生。 到1982年， Brown 的妹妹出生時，後者已經是世界上第 40 個試管嬰兒。自此之後，試管嬰兒的程序不斷演進，成為因年齡、健康狀況及／或生活方式選擇等各種因素而難以成孕的男女提供常見的解決方案。自 2001年起，世界衛生組織已承認不孕不育是影響數百萬人的重大全球健康問題，估計全球每六個育齡人口中，就有一人會在一生中的某個階段遇到生育問題。世衛強調公平取得生殖技術的需要。

司法管轄區的差異與法律考量

澳洲

澳洲已透過生殖技術認證委員會和國家健康與醫學研究委員會，為 IVF 建立了全面的法律架構。新南威爾士州的《2007 年輔助生殖技術法》 容許因醫療和社會原因進行 IVF。公共資助和私人 IVF 診所可對 IVF 患者施加年齡限制。立法的明確目標之一是防止人類生殖商業化。因此，人類胚胎的銷售在澳洲並不合法。如果在 IVF 中使用捐贈的胚胎，胚胎必須作為無私的捐贈，儘管可以支付合理的費用。 知情同意也是關鍵一環，雙方均須同意使用他們的配子。在新南威爾士州，供應商在使用超過 15 年的胚胎之前，必須獲得健康部長批准。

加拿大

在加拿大，《輔助人類生殖法》規範 IVF，強調病人的安全和知情同意。該法律容許基於醫療原因的 IVF，而基於社會原因的 IVF 的定義則不太清晰。胚胎的儲存期最長為 10 年，而各省對 IVF 的公共醫療保障也不盡相同，有些省為 IVF 治療提供部分公共資金或稅收抵免。例如，在安大略省，政府為每位患者提供一個 IVF 週期的治療，但患者必須是 43 歲以下的安大略居民。《輔助人類生殖法》禁止出售卵子、精子及／或胚胎，並特別聲明無私捐贈符合加拿大的價值觀。

德國

德國對 IVF 持保守立場。《胚胎保護法》可追溯至 1990 年，該法禁止捐贈卵子、代孕、以非醫療理由製造胚胎，並限制一個週期內可移植的胚胎數量。少數州為同性夫婦和未婚夫婦提供 IVF 資助，但絕大多數州只為異性夫婦提供協助。過時的法律架構反映出社會價值觀顯然已經進化。現屆德國聯合政府成立了一個專家委員會，於 2024 年 4 月建議將卵子捐贈合法化並加以規範，並在有限的情況下將代孕合法化。

香港特別行政區

香港的《生殖科技及胚胎研究實務守則》 由人類生殖科技管理局於 2002 年發出，同樣反映了保守的價值觀。由於香港尚未在法律上承認同性婚姻，因此同性婚姻中的夫婦和單身婦女，尚未能使用凍卵懷孕服務。香港只容許無私捐贈卵子進行 IVF，商業代孕是不合法的。少數公立醫院為 40 歲以下香港永久性居民且無親生子女的夫婦提供公立 IVF 服務。不幸的是，初次預約 IVF 的等候時間可能長達三年。

日本

日本的 IVF 普及率不斷上升。在 2021年，每 11.6 名新生嬰兒中就有一名是 IVF 嬰兒。然而，法律對 IVF 的支持仍然有限。《人類克隆技術規範法》規範 IVF，只容許在嚴格規範下進行。胚胎儲存是容許的，但法律強調不應基於非醫學原因製造胚胎。由於出生率下降， IVF 及其他不孕治療已於 2022 年加入國家健康保險，但僅適用於已婚夫婦。日本沒有管制代孕的法律條文。

英國

英國根據《1990 年人類受精與胚胎學法》 為 IVF 提供進步的法律環境，還設立了人類受精與胚胎學管理局。儘管診所可能會實施各自的政策，但基於醫療和社會原因進行 IVF 是容許的，對婦女沒有年齡限制。 IVF 可獲得公共資助，取決於患者的居住地，但通常僅限於面對醫療不孕不育的夫婦。在英國，付費代孕是合法的，但代孕協議不可強制執行。

美國

在美國， IVF 和代孕的法律主要由各州監管，導致巨大差異和複雜情況。雖然許多州立法支持 IVF 和商業代孕，但有些州則基於倫理或宗教信仰而施加限制。 IVF 的保險承保範圍也有很大差異，有些州強制承保不孕不育治療。 2024 年 2 月，阿拉巴馬州最高法院裁定冷凍胚胎應享有與兒童相同的權利，導致 IVF 治療癱瘓。不孕不育服務提供者暫停了試管嬰兒治療，因為他們害怕在治療過程中任何胚胎被摧毀時，會以「非正常死亡」罪被起訴。直至為生育提供者制訂了某些保障措施後，IVF 治療才得以恢復。

結論 — 道德與社會影響

不同司法管轄區圍繞 IVF 的法律框架有很大差異，其指導原則在文化、倫理和社會價值觀上截然不同。胚胎權利、同意和取得生殖技術等問題是公眾討論和立法的重點。

免責聲明：本文僅供參考。本文中的任何內容均不得詮釋為香港法律建議或向任何人提供的任何與此相關的法律建議。對於任何人因本文所含的内容而造成的任何損失和/或損害，高李嚴律師行不承擔任何責任。

Oldham, Li & Nie Excels Once Again in 2025 Chambers’ Greater China Region Guide

by

Oldham, Li & Nie (OLN) has been recognised in the 2025 edition of the Chambers’ Greater China Region Guide for its expertise in Corporate/M&A and Family/Matrimonial law.

The guide also highlights two of our lawyers as leading professionals in the region:

Client feedback includes:

  • “They gave us practical advice promptly and always gave us fee estimates in advance” 
  • “Both partner and associate have a thorough understanding of complex intertwined agreements and manage against these, providing invaluable knowledge to our business management”
  • “Oldham, Li & Nie are very commercial and take pride in working to tight deadlines and producing their work on time”
  • “Stephen is very hard-working and commercial”

The Chambers Greater China Region Guide conducts annual evaluations of law firms and lawyers across the Greater China Region, assessing factors such as technical legal skills, professionalism, client service, and business acumen.

For more details on OLN’s rankings, visit our profile in the 2025 Chambers Greater China Region Guide.

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.