FACVNo.26of2008INTHECOURTOFFINALAPPEALOFTHEHONGKONGSPECIALADMINISTRATIVEREGIONFINALAPPEALNO.26OF2008(CIVIL)(ONAPPEALFROMCACVNO.291OF2006)_____________________INTHEMATTERofSections52,53and57oftheTradeMarksOrdinance,Cap.559oftheLawsofHongKongandINTHEMATTERofHongKongTradeMarkNos.300065196for“PINGAN”and300065213for“平安”registeredinClasses16,35,36,38,41and42inthenameof中國平安保險(集團)股份有限公司(“theRespondent”)andINTHEMATTERofanapplicationbyPINGANSECURITIESLIMITED(“theApplicant”)foradeclarationofinvalidityoftheregistrationofHongKongTradeMarkNos.300065196inClass36and300065213inClass36and/orforrectificationoftheRegisterofTradeMarksinrespectthereof_____________________Between:PINGANSECURITIESLIMITEDApplicant(Appellant)and中國平安保險(集團)股份有限公司Respondent(Respondent)_____________________第2页共21页编号：时间：2021年x月x日书山有路勤为径，学海无涯苦作舟页码：第2页共21页Court:MrJusticeBokharyPJ,MrJusticeChanPJ,MrJusticeRibeiroPJ,MrJusticeLittonNPJandMrJusticeGaultNPJDatesofHearing:22and23April2009DateofJudgment:12May2009JUDGMENTMrJusticeBokharyPJ:1.IagreewiththejudgmentofMrJusticeGaultNPJandwouldthereforeallowtheappealwithcostshereandbelow.Notinregardtothemeritsbutinconnectionwiththepreparationofthepapers,weindicatedatthehearingthatwewouldconsidercallingupontheappellant’ssolicitorstoshowcauseunderOrder62rule8oftheRulesoftheHighCourt.Wehavedecidednottoadoptthatcourse.WhywehadcontemplateditappearsfromthejudgmentofMrJusticeLittonNPJ.MrJusticeChanPJ:2.IagreewiththejudgmentofMrJusticeGaultNPJ.MrJusticeRibeiroPJ:3.IagreewiththejudgmentofMrJusticeGaultNPJ.MrJusticeLittonNPJ:4.IagreewithMrJusticeGaultNPJandwishtoelaboratebrieflyupontheaspectofthecasementionedinpara.42ofhisjudgment.5.Itisneverappropriateforacourttoembarkuponanindependentsearchfor第3页共21页第2页共21页编号：时间：2021年x月x日书山有路勤为径，学海无涯苦作舟页码：第3页共21页evidence,whateverformthattakes.TohavedonesoastheCourtofAppealdidinthiscasewasquiteirregular.6.InthisCourtMrJohnYanSC,withadmirablerestraint,submittedthattheirregularityhadcastashadowofprejudiceovertheproceedings;thisdistortedtheresult.Thereismuchstrengthinthissubmission.ButastheirregularityhasnotbeenputforwardbyCounselasanindependentgroundofappeal,Isaynomoreaboutitbeyondexpressingmyregret.Costs7.AsmentionedinMrJusticeBokharyPJ’sjudgment,thequestionofacostsorderunderOrder62rule8wasbrieflymentionedinthecourseofthehearing.8.Thedocumentaryevidence(includingaffidavits)lodgedforthepurposeofthisappealcomestoatotalof1,272pages.Amongstthemarethefollowing:(1)“CMT-9”exhibitedtotheaffirmationofChanManTin,Michael,comprising389pages,describedascopiesofsome(notall)oftheclientstatementsoftheapplicantfrom1993to2004,and(2)“STP-17”exhibitedtoanaffirmationofSzeTsaiPing,Michael,being191pagesofrecordsofsharetransactionsmadethroughtheapplicantinthemonthofMarch2003;thiswassaidtobeinproofofthefactthattheapplicanthadmadenumeroustransactionsonbehalfof1,253clientsinthatmonthandthose191sheetswereillustrativeofthatfact.9.Exhibits“CMT-9”and“STP-17”adduptoatotalof580pages,producedfornootherpurposethantoillustratethefactthattheapplicanthadactedasbrokerinanumberoftransactionsoverthespecifiedperiods.Thesearehardfactsoverwhichtherecouldhavebeennodispute.Theyarematterswhichcouldhavebeeneasilyagreedbetweenthesolicitors.Moreover,thosepagesprovednothing;theydidnot第4...
