Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Chikaranomoto Company Co Ltd v A-1 Bakery Co (Hk) Ltd

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date20 June 2011
CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement NumberHCA364/2011
Subject MatterCivil Action
HCMP354/2011 CHIKARANOMOTO COMPANY CO LTD v. A-1 BAKERY CO (HK) LTD

HCMP 354/2011
HCA 364/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 354 OF 2011

ACTION NO. 364 OF 2011

________________________

BETWEEN

CHIKARANOMOTO COMPANY CO. LTD.
(ALSO KNOWN AS KABUSHIKI KAISHA CHIKARANOMOTO COMPANY CO. LTD.)		 Plaintiff
and
A-1 BAKERY CO. (HK) LTD. Defendant

________________________

(Consolidated by the Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Au
dated the 23rd day of March 2011)

Before : Hon Sakhrani J in Chambers

Date of Hearing : 20 June 2011

Date of Judgment : 20 June 2011

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1. This is an application by the plaintiff for an order under O. 27; r. 3 RHC for judgment on admissions of fact made by the defendant in its consolidated statement of amended defence (“the defence”).

2. By a summons dated 13 June 2011 the plaintiff asks for an order that it be at liberty to enter judgment against the defendant on its claim for a declaration that Trade Mark No. 300757323 in respect of “Japanese restaurant services, provision of Japanese food and drink; all included in Class 43” (“the defendant’s trade mark”) is invalid in its entirety as regards all such services and that the defendant’s trade mark be removed from the Register of Trade Marks accordingly.

3. The plaintiff’s claims against the defendant are for injunctive relief, damages and consequential orders in respect of its claims for infringement of copyright and passing off as fully pleaded and particularised in the consolidated statement of claim (“the statement of claim”). The plaintiff also claims a declaration that the defendant’s trade mark is invalid and an order that the defendant’s trade mark be removed from the Register of Trade Marks.

4. The plaintiff’s summons for judgment on admissions is in respect of its claim for a declaration that the defendant’s trade mark is invalid and an order that the defendant’s trade mark be removed from the Register. The plaintiff relies on admissions made by the defendant in the defence at paragraph 24(f) where the defendant pleads :

“ The Defendant’s Trade Mark was and is not being used as an indicator of source or origin but merely as a trading name.”

5. As the function of a trade mark is to indicate origin, Mr. Shipp submits...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT