OLN

Test Blog

再談在仲裁中追討附帶法庭程序的費用

by

作者: 梁泳澤律師及伍潔愉律師

(本文章發表於2021年4月的《香港律師》雜誌上：http://www.hk-lawyer.org/sites/default/files/e-magazines/HKL-APR-2021/viewer/desktop/index.html?doc=05D3B64F4883E4B7B372AA907090C1D6#page/40)

在《關於內地與香港特別行政區法院就仲裁程序相互協助保全的安排》（《安排》）下，以香港為仲裁地的當事人可向內地法院申請保全措施以支持有關仲裁，可謂一項重大突破。中國內地未曾與任何其他司法管轄區作出類似安排。因此，有人認為《安排》將「改變遊戲規則」，為選擇香港作為與中國有關爭議的中立仲裁地，提供了無可比擬的優勢。

值得注意的是，內地法院一般並非由敗訴方支付訟費。而香港仲裁方是否可以在仲裁中向另一方取得根據《安排》於內地法院獲取保全的費用，則是一個值得探討的問題。事實上，中國內地並非唯一預設由訴訟方各自承擔訟費的司法管轄區。更廣的問題或許是，當附帶法庭程序預設的訟費原則是「由訴訟方各自承擔訟費」時，當事人是否可在仲裁中追討向相關法庭申請保全的費用。

本文將深入探討此追討訟費的爭議。雖然來自普通法適用地區的仲裁當事人可能歡迎這種訟費的申索，但仲裁庭在容許此種訟費申索時亦應小心謹慎地行使其管轄權。任何容許此種訟費申索的仲裁裁決，均有可能被視為違反公共政策而被撤銷或無法執行。因此，最簡單的解決方案，則是在合約中加入適當的訟費彌償條款。

爭議

《仲裁的訟費和獲得保全的費用》（《香港律師》，2020年9月）一文中，曾探討過根據《安排》向內地法院申請保全後在仲裁中追討相關費用的問題。該文認為，對比《1996年英國仲裁法》（《英國仲裁法》）內的「仲裁的訟費」所包括的「其他費用」可被廣泛解釋為涵蓋附帶法庭程序的費用，《仲裁條例》中並沒有提及在法庭訴訟中申請臨時措施所招致的費用，是否可被視為仲裁訟費用的一部分並予以追討。文章亦建議修改《安排》以使該些費用可在仲裁中追討。

仲裁庭的管轄權

就香港的仲裁而言，《仲裁條例》事實上並非完全沒有提及在仲裁中追討附帶法庭程序衍生的費用的議題。《仲裁條例》第74(3)條規定，「凡任何一方要求作出命令或指示（包括臨時措施），則仲裁庭亦可就該請求，行使其酌情決定權，命令一方支付費用（包括該仲裁庭的收費及開支）」（作者後加的強調）。雖然第74(3)條沒有特別說明該費用包括與仲裁有關的法庭申請，但因為《仲裁條例》第74(1)條已列明仲裁庭有權在裁決內對仲裁程序的費用作指示，如第74(3)條被理解為不包括法庭申請，第74(3)條實屬多餘。鑑於第74(3)條寬廣的措詞，它可說是已涵蓋向法庭申請臨時措施的費用。

就《安排》而言，第三條已假設仲裁機構將參與內地法院的保全申請。例如，在仲裁機構受理當事人的仲裁案件後，保全申請應由該機構轉遞。因此，結合上述第74(1)條和第74(3)條，仲裁庭應具有管轄權，就當事人申請保全的費用作出裁決（而內地法院的費用將歸入上述第三條）。

無論如何，大多數機構和臨時仲裁的規則（例如2018年《香港國際仲裁中心管理仲裁規則》第34.1條；《國際商會仲裁規則》（2021年）第38條；《貿易法委員會仲裁規則》（2013年）第40(2)條），均將「其他費用」包括在「仲裁的訟費」之中。如《英國仲裁法》中的「其他費用」一詞可被廣泛地解釋為涵蓋附帶法庭程序招致的費用，則仲裁庭亦應根據各仲裁規則對追討此類費用有管轄權。

行使管轄權

即使根據《仲裁條例》第74條及／或各仲裁規則，香港的仲裁庭可能有管轄權容許追討附帶法庭程序的費用，但這並不等於仲裁庭應該行使這個管轄權。實際上，此管轄權似乎只應在極少數情況下才行使，尤其是如果預設的訟費規則無法以合同方式約定豁免。

須謹記，仲裁庭的管轄權源自仲裁協議。若當事人未能把預設的訟費規則以合同豁免，仲裁庭亦應慎重地行使其從當事人獲得的訟費管轄權去達至同樣效果。否則，仲裁裁決可能會根據《仲裁條例》第81條被撤銷，或因違反公共政策而無法執行(Ralli Brothers v Compañia Naviera Sota Y Aznar [1920] 2 K.B. 287; Ryder Industries Ltd v Chan Shui Woo [2016] 1 HKC 323)。

以訟費彌償作為解決方案

在沒有修例變更法庭程序的預設訟費規則，而又不限制法庭對訟費行使司法酌情權，更不以合約豁免預設的訟費規則的情況下，最簡單可以全數追討法律費用（不論是仲裁或法庭程序中產生）的方法可能是在合約中加入能反映當事人立場的訟費彌償條款。訟費彌償條款能給予當事人追討訟費的合約權利，此權利獨立於仲裁庭判定訟費的權力，除非受「不容反悔」或既判原則所排除，否則當事人可以強制執行訟費彌償條款(Cervo v Kingsleys Pty Ltd [2018] ACTSC 179)。

在Abigroup Limited v Sandtara Pty Limited [2002] NSWCA 45一案中，新南威爾斯上訴法院維持地方法院的判決，確認了即使法院在主要訴訟程序中僅判給了訴訟各方對評基準的訟費，原告仍有合約權利在新的訴訟中，根據合約彌償條款追討律師與委託人基準的訟費與訴訟各方對評基準的訟費之間的差額。上訴法院亦裁定，此等在地方法院進行的後繼申索並不違反「不容反悔」原則，也非濫用法庭程序。

一般而言，法庭就訟費行使酌情權時如未有處理訟費彌償的議題的話，隨後的訟費彌償申索均不會構成既判事項或被排除執行。雙方如何承擔未來訴訟訟費的合約規定，也不會因該訴訟的訟費命令與合約規定不一致而被廢止(Vertzayias v King & Ors [2011] NSWCA 215)。

話雖如此，當事人在隨後的訴訟中是否不能執行訟費彌償，須視乎每宗案件的情況而定。當中需考慮的因素眾多，例如彌償條款的措詞、在先前訴訟中是否已曾申辯或被考慮（包括向法官提交的陳詞）、當事人為何不在先前訴訟中提出相關議題，以及先前訴訟中的命令條款等(Cervo v Kingsleys Pty Ltd [2018] ACTSC 179)。

結論

即使當地法庭的預設訟費規則是由各方自行承擔訟費，來自普通法適用地區的仲裁界在習慣了「訟費視乎訴訟結果而定」下，偏好「全數追討」與仲裁有關的費用的是可以理解的。儘管仲裁庭可能對裁決附帶法庭程序的費用具有管轄權，但如裁決等同允許當事人以合約繞過法定預設的訟費規則，仲裁庭則應慎重地行使其訟費管轄權。在不限制法庭裁決訟費權力的情況下，當事人應考慮加插適當的訟費彌償條款，以反映合約方基於各自獨立利益而達成之訟費安排。

致謝

作者希望感謝戴均豪（高李嚴律師事務所實習律師）的研究幫助。

2021年4月

如何在新型冠狀病毒（COVID-19）時代在香港舉行股東周年大會

by

在這個COVID-19時代，一些過去曾經易於處理的商業慣例已變得難以實行，包括召開周年成員大會（「周年大會」）。香港的公司必須確保周年大會要遵守《公司條例》（《香港法例》第622章），而且要遵守公共衛生條例。

根據於2020年3月29日生效的香港法例第599G章《預防及控制疾病（禁止羣組聚集）規例》，該條例禁止羣組在任何香港的「公眾地方」聚集。但是，該條例豁免「任何團體的會議，前提是該會議須在指明期間內舉行，以遵守任何條例或符合規管該團體的運作或事務的其他規管性質文書的羣組聚集」。該豁免適用於公司的周年大會。在本文中，我們根據《預防及控制疾病（禁止羣組聚集）規例》以及《公司條例》，討論上市公司和私人公司中如何舉行周年大會。

私人公司

實體會議

為了保障公眾健康，公司應盡可能限制股東出席周年大會，並採取預防措施以保持社交距離。

如《預防及控制疾病（禁止羣組聚集）規例》附表1第11段所述，如果有超過20人參加周年大會，公司必須採取措施將股東分隔在不同房間或區隔範圍中，並且每個房間或範圍容納不多於20人。

為了更好地管理參加會議的股東人數，如果股東希望親自出席會議，公司可以考慮要求股東進行預先註冊。公司還可以鼓勵股東在會議之前以書面形式向管理層提出問題。

虛擬會議/混合式會議

隨著科技的進步，《公司條例》引入了一項條款，准許公司在周年大會使用科技。 

根據《公司條例》第584（1）條規定，公司可使用令該公司身處不同地方的成員能夠在大會上聆聽、發言及表決的任何科技，在2個或多於2個地方舉行成員大會。這可以使不在同一地點的股東能夠聆聽，發言和表決。

根據《公司條例》第576條的規定，如果公司要在2個或以上地點舉行會議，則必須在會議通知中列出周年大會的主要地點和其他地點。

但是，召開虛擬會議/混合式會議亦必須遵循法定人數和其他法定要求，以使股東在會議做出的決定為有效。

此外，股東必須能夠在虛擬周年大會上投票。公司應建立一種股東投票的機制，如通過視頻會議舉手或通過電話進行口頭答复。

或者，一些公司通過混合會議的方式召開周年大會，即該會議既可以在實際地點又可以通過電子方式舉行。股東可以選擇親自出席或以虛擬方式出席會議。

請注意，如果公司打算舉行虛擬會議/混合會議，則公司須核對其章程或任何股東協議，以檢查是否有任何規定要求周年大會上要有實際股東的存在。

書面決議

此外，公司除了舉行實體會議外，還可以考慮使用書面決議。根據《公司條例》第548條，除在其任期結束前罷免審計師或董事的例外情況外，公司可以向股東傳閱書面決議。根據《公司條例》第556條，所有有資格對該決議案進行表決的股東均已簽署，則該決議案獲得通過。如要採用書面決議而不是實體會議，應在有限數目的股東或董事且可以預見沒有異議的情況下使用。

上市公司

實體會議

證券及期貨事務監察委員會（「證監會」）及香港聯合交易所有限公司（「聯交所」）根據《預防及控制疾病（禁止羣組聚集）規例》於2020年4月1日發表《聯合聲明》，闡明上市公司舉行股東大會的職責。

根據《聯合聲明》，所有股東大會，包括（i）《公司條例》和/或《主板上市規則》或《創業板上市規則》規定的股東周年大會； （ii）除《預防及控制疾病（禁止羣組聚集）規例》外，香港上市公司的股東特別大會通常屬例外。

實際技巧

(1)    與股東溝通：公司應提醒股東在公司網站上注意股東周年大會的安排。
(2)    給股東充足的時間送回代理委托書：如果股東不親自出席會議，則股東可以在會議前以代理委托書進行投票。
(3)    讓股東提出問題：公司應在召開會議前為股東提供以書面或電子形式向管理層提出問題的渠道，以便未能出席會議的股東仍有機會提出問題。
(4)    召開實體會議的安排：如果公司決定舉行實體周年大會，則公司應縮短演示文稿或將其發佈在公司網站上。如果需要休會，公司應準備會議的文稿，並提前計劃休會期限，並在必要時將休會或推遲通知發給股東。此外，公司不應提供茶點。公司應確保在周年大會的場館有消毒和其他防疫安排。
(5)    制定虛擬會議的指引：為了促進虛擬會議能順利進行，公司應為股東準備有關虛擬會議中可能會遇到的一些實際問題的指引，例如股東在失去連接後，如何可以重新參加會議和股東應怎樣投票，例如按下按鈕或舉手示意等，並準備任何應急計劃，以防遇到技術困難。

我們預計虛擬會議在COVID-19之後的時代會繼續盛行。我們建議公司應仔細計劃舉行股東周年大會有關措施，以符合《公司條例》和《預防及控制疾病（禁止羣組聚集）規例》的規定。

Enforcing a French Court Judgment in Hong Kong

by

If you have obtained a decision in your favour in an overseas jurisdiction against a Hong Kong company or individual, the key question for you would be whether or not this judgment can be enforced in Hong Kong.

A court decision cannot be enforced overseas without first being recognised by the relevant countries concerned, and Hong Kong is no exception to this principle.

French courts are issuing an increasing number of decisions against non-French companies, including many registered in Hong Kong. According to French law, to enforce a judgment by a French court in an overseas jurisdiction, there is an obligation to comply with the ‘Exequatur procedure,’ and this procedure may vary depending on the overseas jurisdictions involved.

Enforcement in Hong Kong 

The enforcement of French or other foreign judgments can be obtained in two ways: either registering the decision with the Court of First Instance or bringing a new legal action.

As far as France is concerned, the exequatur procedure that must be followed is the former – registering the decision with the Court of First Instance. There is no need to bring new legal action and start the whole process from the beginning again.

When you have obtained a conviction against a Hong Kong company, the core considerations before moving forward are the following:

1.    Is the defendant solvent in Hong Kong?
2.    Is the judgment final?
3.    Does the decision order payment of monetary damages?

If the answers to these three questions are affirmative, you can then consider the next steps to take.

Once the defendant’s solvency in Hong Kong is established, it is possible to proceed with the registration procedure, which is provided for in the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act Cap 319. This text enables the enforcement of foreign judgments by registering decisions from superior courts in designated countries with reciprocal arrangements with Hong Kong. These designated countries include Australia, Bermuda, Brunei, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Austria, the Netherlands, and Israel. 

Under these provisions, the beneficiary of a French court’s decision may apply to the Court of First Instance in Hong Kong for registration.

Here are some of the conditions to be met (this list is not exhaustive):

•    the decision must relate to the payment of a sum of money;
•    the decision must be final and not subject to appeal;
•    the decision must be issued by a civil or commercial court; and
•    the application must be filed within six years of the final decision from the foreign jurisdiction.

Once the decision is registered in Hong Kong, a notification will be served to the defendant, and the decision can be enforced in the same way as the decisions by local courts.

Security for Costs

A critical specificity in Hong Kong, is that the local court can ask the plaintiff seeking enforcement for security in the form of a deposit. It is well-established in Hong Kong that a foreign plaintiff may be ordered to deposit a sum in court, known as the ‘Security for costs’ when starting legal proceedings.

The security for costs aims to cover part of the defendant’s estimated litigation costs in defending an action brought by a foreign plaintiff. When the defendant successfully defends the action, the amount of its legal costs that normally would be payable by the foreign plaintiff, would be secured by the security for costs. 

Therefore, depending on the amounts involved, this can act as a deterrent for overseas plaintiffs as they may not want to have a significant financial sum locked up in Hong Kong.

As mentioned above, this procedure of registration at the Court of First Instance is only available for a specific list of countries (including France). Therefore, for other jurisdictions you should always check if the jurisdiction issuing the decision to be enforced in Hong Kong is also on this list. If not, the possibility of bringing a new legal action based on the foreign judgment remains open. 

No Requirement for Reciprocity

This procedure is possible even if the decision does not emanate from a common-law jurisdiction as there is no requirement for reciprocity. A decision rendered by a court in a jurisdiction that does not recognize a judgment made by a Hong Kong court may still be enforced in Hong Kong if all the conditions are met.

Should you wish to enforce a foreign decision in Hong Kong, and more specifically a decision issued by a French judge, it is highly recommended to contact a Hong Kong lawyer to discuss the best way forward.

Trade Mark Reviews in China – Some Encouraging Successes

by

The general principles in determining whether a trade mark can be registered in China are to a large extent the same as in most other countries, considering China is also one of many jurisdictions in the WIPO Madrid International Registration system. Indistinctive or descriptive marks which fail to achieve registration in the European Union will probably have no chance of registration in China. Yet it does not mean that trade marks which are clearly distinctive and registered in most places around the world will naturally be accepted for registration in China because certain technical or special grounds can withhold registration, putting aside the relative ground due to existence of prior similar marks.

For example, a mark will likely have its registration declined in China if it comprises a country name or any foreign geographical name widely known to the public. During the course of substantive examination, the Examiner may not look at every aspect to find out if the relevant name has any other meanings or references in the whole context of the mark. Upon refusal, the Applicant will have to resort to the review process to explain and justify that the mark in its entirety can satisfy the requirements for registration.  

There are 3 scenarios where a mark comprising a geographical name may be registered: –

  1. the name has another meaning
  2. the name forms part of a collective or certification trade mark
  3. the name is not a dominant element of the mark and it only serves to indicate the corresponding place of origin of the applicant    

Marie France Van Damme

Fashion designer Marie France Van Damme uses her own personal name for branding purposes and has been trading under the mark  . However, this was initially declined for registration in Class 25 for “clothing” in China because of the word “FRANCE” within the trade mark. Ms Van Damme succeeded in the review by convincing the review adjudicator that the word “France” is generally perceived by consumers, in the context of her brand, as the name of a living person instead of referring to the country of France.  

URAL

The mark  was initially declined for registration in Class 9 for “loudspeakers” in China because of the word “URAL” in the mark being associated with the Ural Mountains located along the East European and West Siberian plains. The applicant succeeded in the review by convincing the review adjudicator that the word “URAL” can also be a surname and a specie of owl. The evidence of pre-application use of the mark by the extensive sales of the goods in China might have supported this case. However, as it is not expressly entered as a condition of registration in China whether or not a mark has been granted based on acquired distinctiveness through use, such unreported precedent gives us a useful hint or guidance that this approach can work in some cases.    

Car And Driver

Suggestive marks are often just categorically seen as descriptive marks in China. The application for   was initially declined registration in Class 4 for ‘fuels’ as the words ‘CAR’ and “DRIVER” seem closely associated with the products of “fuels” for automobiles but if we look at these words more carefully, they are not directly connected to the essential characteristics and functions of the goods. The Applicant succeeded in the review by convincing the review adjudicator that the mark as a whole is not directly descriptive of the goods sought to be registered and it is capable of functioning as a trade mark to indicate the source of origin of the goods.  

China has a tremendously high number of trade mark applications filed on a daily basis. We just need to bear with a reasonable degree of discrepancy, fluctuation and inconsistency between different examiners in assessing the inherent registrability of a trade mark. The good news is we can always rely on the review mechanism to share our views and analysis with the more senior examiners to reassess whether a mark, which is usually unique on its own, can satisfy the requirements for registration as laid down in the Trade Mark Law. We are seeing good progress as China becomes more aligned with rest of the world in the administration of the trade mark regime.  

What do we do now? – A Quick Guide to Administering an Estate

by

Managing and administering an estate may be a complex matter and most people are unsure even where to begin. It is hard enough to accept the loss of a loved one. The last thing we want to do is to hurry about in search of key papers and statements, as well as information as to the proper process to handle the estate of your loved one. We see every day the stress this incurs. Here we summarise the usual procedures for obtaining Probate to validate the will and administer an estate. Hopefully this step-by-step guide can act as a starting point which could make this process simpler and more manageable. 

Step 1: Registering the Death 

After the death you should first register such at the registrar of births and deaths and obtain a death certificate. You will need to produce a medical certificate of the cause of death to obtain the death certificate. 

Step 2: Making Funeral Arrangements 

After the death certificate has been obtained, you may begin making funeral arrangements.  

If there is a will (as further explained below), it is the responsibility of the person named therein as executor(s) to arrange for the funeral. It is possible that the deceased may have indicated his/her wishes in the will as to their preference for burial or cremation. The executor should take into account such wishes when making funeral arrangements. 

The expenses incurred in arranging the funeral and disposal of the body is payable from the deceased’s estate. However, it is usually not permitted to deal with the deceased’s assets at this early stage as a has not been obtained from the Probate Registry. Therefore, in practice, the family members of the deceased will pay for such expenses and be reimbursed from the estate after a grant of representation is obtained.  

Step 3: Looking for a Will and Inspection of Safe Deposit Box 

You should check carefully to see whether the deceased made a will and if there is a will, whether it is the latest will or if it has been subsequently revoked. (This step can be taken earlier so that the deceased’s family members will know whether there is an executor to handle the funeral arrangements.)  

You could start by checking the personal documents of the deceased and/or enquiring with the deceased’s other family members. Often, you will also have to check the deceased’s safe deposit box.  

To gain access to the safe deposit box, the following individual could make an application to the Director of Home Affairs for a Certificate for Necessity of Inspection of Bank Deposit Box: 

  1. An executor or one of the executors of the deceased; 
  2. A person who is entitled to administer the estate; or 
  3. The surviving renter if the safe deposit box is jointly rented by the deceased with another person.  

After the certificate of inspection is obtained, the holder of the certificate should make an appointment with the Secretary for Home Affairs and the bank for inspection of the safe deposit box.  

If a will is found in the safe deposit box and the holder of the inspection certificate is named as the executor under the will or the holder is the surviving renter of the safe deposit box, the holder can remove the will after taking a copy and returning the copy to the safe deposit box. The holder should also make an inventory of the contents in the safe deposit box.   

If there is no will found or if there is a will but i) the holder of the inspection certificate is not the executor, or ii) there is no executor appointed in the will and the holder is not the surviving renter of the safe deposit box, the bank staff should immediately close the safe deposit box after obtaining a copy of the will (if any) and giving the copy to the public officers. 

It should be noted that you should not remove any item, save and except a will (if possible), from the safe deposit box during inspection.  

Step 4: Obtaining Grant of Representation 

Thereafter, it is usually necessary to obtain a grant of representation in order to deal with the deceased’s assets.  

If the deceased passed away with a will appointing an executor, the executor should apply for a Grant of Probate. If the deceased passed away without a valid will (e.g. no will was found or the will has been revoked), persons entitled e.g. wife, children should apply for a Grant of Letters of Administration.  

The application for a grant is made to the Probate Registry of the High Court using specific forms supported by relevant documents, including:- 

  1. An affirmation or affidavit by Executor/Administrator; 
  2. An affirmation or affidavit verifying the Schedule of Assets and Liabilities, and the Schedule of Assets and Liabilities of the deceased in Hong Kong as at the date of death, together with other supporting documents (e.g. death certificate of the deceased, will of the deceased, certificate showing the relationship of the applicant and the deceased, filing fees etc.)   

After making the application, the Probate Registry may raise requisitions on the application to obtain further information or seek clarification. If the Probate Registry is satisfied with your answers to the requisitions, the grant will be issued.  

Step 5: Distribution of the Estate 

After the grant of representation is obtained, the personal representative of the estate (i.e. the executor under the will or the administrator appointed if there is no will) will first need to collect the assets of the deceased under the estate and then make payment of the deceased’s debts, funeral and other expenses in relation to the estate. Thereafter, the estate may be distributed accordingly.  

If there is no valid will, the administrator should distribute the estate in accordance with the Intestates’ Estates Ordinance. The order of entitlement depends on the relationship of the surviving relative with the deceased. (It should be noted that the rule of intestacy only benefits people who have direct blood relations with the deceased and does not benefit unmarried partners, step-children (unless legally adopted) and in-laws.  

For example, if the deceased leaves a widow/widower only but leaves no children, parents or other close relatives, then the surviving spouse is entitled to the whole of the deceased’s residuary estate. Another example is where the deceased leaves a spouse and a child, the surviving spouse is entitled to all of the deceased’s personal chattels, and a sum of HK$500,000 from the residuary estate, thereafter, if there is any remaining asset, it would be divided in half and distributed equally between the surviving spouse and the child of the deceased.  

On the other hand, if there is a valid will, the executor should distribute the estate in accordance with the deceased’s wishes under the will. In the event that there is partial intestacy (i.e. where there is a will which does not completely dispose of the deceased’s assets), the Intestates’ Estates Ordinance will govern the distribution of those undisposed assets.  

Conclusion 

The above is only a brief summary of the process of handling one’s post-death matters and dealing with the deceased’s estate. In reality, complications may arise in any stage of obtaining probate and administering the estate. If you have any questions regarding the above or would like to obtain further information on our probate and estate planning services, please contact one of the members of our Probate and Estate Planning team.   

This article is for information purposes only. Its contents do not constitute legal advice and readers should not regard this article as a substitute for detailed advice in individual instances. 

March 2021

OLN IP 的蔡柏堅律師在2021年WTR 1000中獲得認可

by

恭喜OLN IP常務董事蔡柏堅律師，在2021年世界商標評論1000 – 全球領先的商標專業人士在“起訴和戰略”銀牌領域中獲得認可。

蔡柏堅律師最近加入我們的法律和商業解決方案平台，擔任OLN IP Services（OLN IP）的常務董事，是一間由高李嚴律師行擴展在知識產權領域服務的新公司。 OLN IP是一家顧問公司，可為知識產權公司提供量身定制, 具商業觸覺的法律意見和知識產權資產組合管理。

在此再次祝賀蔡柏堅律師獲得認可。

關於OLN IP

OLN IP顧問公司致力於為知識產權擁有者提供量身定制, 具商業觸覺的法律意見，從協助基於技術的知識產權，商標，版權，專利和外觀設計，到持續管理知識產權資產。 OLN IP由蔡柏堅律師擔任常務董事以及宋靜妍律師領導，兩位均為知識產權領域的資深人士, 並得到了我們香港和上海辦事處經驗豐富的知識產權專家團隊的支持，他們共同以深厚的經驗和豐富的知識為客戶提供適合其業務需求的細微而精確的知識產權建議。

OLN IP是香港律師事務領先的高李嚴律師行之子公司，我們在香港和中國大陸設有辦事處，自1987年以來依賴其對專業卓越的承諾推動了增長和發展。

2021年3月