SFKS takes pleasure to announce the entering of a strategic alliance with Chainova Technology Limited (“Chainova”), a platform with strong expertise and experience in the technical aspects of Web 3.0 and blockchain technologies, Real-World Asset (“RWA”) tokenization, security token offering (“STO”) and the related technologies.
A signing ceremony for the Memorandum of Understanding of the aforesaid strategic alliance was hosted on 20 March 2026.
The strategic alliance will leverage the respective strengths and expertise of SFKS and Chainova to provide comprehensive solutions to clients seeking guidance and execution in the areas of Web 3.0, blockchain, stablecoin, digital identity, RWA, STO, tracing and freezing in digital fraud.
SFKS has the history of pioneering technology related market changes. Today, SFKS is dedicated to transforming clients’ valuable innovations into enforceable rights, with structuring licenses, custody, disclosures, data protection and dispute pathways.
Our Senior Associate Cindy Fong spoke at a seminar cum dinner organized by Hong Kong Real Property Federation (HKRPF).
HKRPF provides a wide spectrum of services of company and individual members including property developers, construction companies and senior practitioners of related disciplines such as surveyors, engineers, architects, valuators, lawyers, property managers, bankers and accountants etc., providing professional services to the real estate industry.
In the event, Cindy shared on a High Court adverse possession case where Counsel for the case, Derek Hu, was also a co-speaker for the session.
SFKS echoes the dedication of HKRPF in supporting Hong Kong’s economic development and to assist its members to develop business in the Mainland and across the Strait.
Photo from left to right:
Dr. Wai-Man Woo, SBS, BBS, Permanent Honorary President, HKRPF
Mr. Anthony Chan, BBS, MH, JP, Permanent Honorary President, HKRPF
Mr. Kuok Hoi Sang, MH, President, HKRPF
Cindy Fong
Derek Hu, Counsel
Mr. Victor Sung, Chairman of Professional Affairs Committee, HKRPF
We wish you had a Happy International Women's Day! Our partner, Ms. Jenny Wong, was honored to be a guest speaker at the “Celebrating Women in Law: Blossoming Together in the Legal Profession” event, organized by the Guangzhou Lawyers Association. Jenny shared her journey on how female lawyers can thrive professionally by embracing their unique strengths—a story of professionalism, growth, and mission.
Our firm are committed to empowering our female lawyers to excel in the legal profession while maintaining a harmonious and fulfilling family life. To all the incredible women —may you continue to excel and reach new heights in your careers!
IPRs Enforcement Actions in HK Trade Fairs
Hong Kong has earned a strong reputation for hosting international exhibitions, attracting renowned exhibitors and millions of visitors who aim to conclude business deals within a short exhibition period. These exhibitions serve as a vital platform for exhibitors to showcase their products, which often involve the development and exploitation of intellectual property rights ("IPRs"), including trade marks, copyrights, designs, and patents. Nonetheless, such events can also become a venue for infringers to display products that infringing the IPRs of others. Given that exhibition periods are typically short, lasting only a few days, it is crucial for IPRs owners to act swiftly. This article will discuss various enforcement actions that IPRs owners can take during the brief exhibition period to duly protect their IPRs while also seeking opportunities for further exploitation.
Generally, there are three local measures to enforce IPRs at trade fairs in Hong Kong, namely: (a) applying to the High Court of Hong Kong for interlocutory injunctions ("Court's Injunctions"); (b) filing complaints with the Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department ("HK Customs' Actions") and (c) filing complaints with the IPR offices provided by trade fair organizers ("organizers’ Actions").
Court's Injunctions
Parties to take enforcement actions:-
IPRs owners shall take an ex parte application to the Court for an interlocutory injunction with a returnable date for parties to attend before the Court. Upon the grant of an interim injunction, the IPRs owners shall serve the sealed copy of the injunction upon the alleged infringing parties.
Parties against whom enforcement actions are taken:-
Infringing exhibitors displaying any infringing products, including photos, and other related parties such as suppliers (if identified).
Will enforcement actions be taken against the organizers of the trade fairs?:-
For trade marks, it is possible under Section 18 of the Trade Marks Ordinance (Cap 559). For copyrights, it is possible under Section 31 of the Copyright Ordinance (Cap 528).
Types of IPRs enforced:-
All types of IPRs.
Documents and details required:-
Pleadings with an affidavit / affirmation of full and frank disclosure establishing that:- (a) there is a serious question to be tried on the merits of the case; (b) the balance of convenience lies in favor of granting an injunction; and (c) a cross-undertaking in damages (if appropriate). Documentary proofs of IPRs ownership and the infringing activities of the exhibitors are essential to be included in the said affidavit / affirmation.
Official fee required (apart from legal fees payable to instructing solicitors/counsel):-
Yes. There are official fees for filing the ex parte application for an interlocutory injunction and for obtaining sealed copies of the injunction granted.
General Procedure:-
An urgent ex parte application with the required documents shall be filed with the court during office hours for an immediate hearing date to grant the interlocutory injunction and a subsequent hearing date returnable by both parties. The urgent ex parte application can also be made outside court office hours by calling the duty judge to grant the interlocutory injunction and an immediate hearing date returnable by the parties. Upon the grant of the interlocutory injunction, the IPRs owners shall serve it upon the infringer, requesting them not to display the infringing products. Failing which, actions for contempt of court may be brought against the infringer. However, if the infringer has a valid defense, they shall attend court on the fixed returnable date to request further directions.
Who decides if there is a prima facie case of IPR infringement at Fair Trade?:-
Judge on the Intellectual Property List in the Court of First Instance of the High Court or other duty judge
Time frame for taking actions:-
The interlocutory injunction can be granted within half a day if all documents are in order.
Actions taken at the trade fairs:-
The IPRs owners shall serve the sealed copy of the injunction against the infringing exhibitors and the organizer of the trade fair.
Post-exhibition action:-
The IPRs owners may pursue the same actions at court for relief such as damages.
Advantages:-
It is an efficient measure to stop or deter infringing activities at the stance of trade fair. Damages may be awarded if parties pursue the same actions at court after the trade fair.
Limitations:-
It involves rather complicated court procedure requiring instructing solicitors and counsel and legal costs and disbursements are rather high.
HK Customs' Actions
Parties to take enforcement actions:-
IPRs owners shall file complaints with HK Customs. Upon acceptance of the complaints, HK Customs will conduct seizure of infringing products and commence prosecution against infringing exhibitors at the stance of trade fair.
Parties against whom enforcement actions are taken:-
Infringing exhibitors displaying any infringing products, including photos, and other related parties such as suppliers (if identified).
Will enforcement actions be taken against the organizers of the trade fairs?:-
For trade marks, it may not be possible under Section 9 of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance (Cap 362). For copyrights, it may not be possible under Section 118 of the Copyright Ordinance (Cap 528).
Types of IPRs:-
Trade marks, copyrights.
Documents and details required for recordation with HK Customs:-
The requested documents and details generally include:- (a) original authorization letter, copies of IPR certificates or latest trade mark records in Hong Kong; (b) statutory declaration under Section 121 of the Copyright Ordinance; (c) sample(s) of genuine and corresponding alleged goods; (d) copy of the invoice(s) of the sample(s) of alleged goods (if any); (e) appointment of examiner(s) by the trade mark owner(s) (Note: the appointed examiner(s) is/are required to conduct subsequent seizure identification and undertake to give evidence and testify in the courts of Hong Kong; an examiner is considered competent if they are capable of differentiating counterfeits by their knowledge, experience, and/or through access to the right holder’s records) and (f) record of preliminary examination.
Official fee required (apart from legal fees):-
No.
General Procedure:-
Preferably, the above documents for a prior complaint (not necessarily related to the infringing products to be displayed) shall be submitted to HK Customs. HK Customs will invite the examiner for the IPRs owners to conduct a competency test. Upon satisfaction with the documents filed and the examiner's competency, recordation is considered completed. Practically, it is not easy for overseas IPRs owners to arrange for their examiners to come to Hong Kong to assist with investigation and prosecution. When the alleged infringing products are displayed at trade fairs, the IPRs owners can immediately report to HK Customs for further action.
Who decides if there is a *prima facie* case of IPR infringement?:-
The officers in charge at Hong Kong Customs.
Time frame for taking actions:-
The recordation process is rather slow (especially the satisfaction of the competency test for examiners). Once it is completed, the process of search and seizure of infringing goods displayed at trade fairs upon receiving complaints can be conducted expediently.
Actions taken at the trade fairs:-
The officers of HK Customs will search and seize the infringing products at trade fairs for further investigation or prosecution.
Post-exhibition action:-
HK Customs may commence prosecution against the infringing exhibitors. Fine sanctions may be imposed upon the infringing exhibitors. However, no damages will be awarded to the IPRs owners. Upon conviction of the infringing exhibitors, the IPRs owners may request HK Customs to provide relevant documents and details to commence a separate civil action against the infringing exhibitors for relief such as damages.
Advantages:-
It is an efficient measure to stop or deter infringing activities at the trade fair upon completion of recordation with HK Customs. Criminal sanctions such as fines and imprisonment may be imposed by HK Customs
Limitations-
It is quite time-consuming to complete recordation, especially the appointment of examiners who must pass the competency test. Also, the burden of proof is high for prosecution (beyond reasonable doubt) and there is no award for damages to the owners of IPRs.
Fair Organizers’ Actions
Parties to take enforcement actions:-
IPR owners shall file complaints with the Organizers’ IPR Office. Upon acceptance of the complaints, the Organizers will issue a "Taking Down Notice" against the infringing exhibitors, requesting them to remove the infringing products, conduct seizure of infringing products and / or imposing other sanctions against infringing exhibitors pursuant to exhibition agreement entered into between the Organizer and the infringing exhibitors.
Parties against whom enforcement actions are taken:-
Infringing exhibitors.
Will enforcement actions be taken against the infringing organizers of the trade fairs?:-
No.
Types of IPRs:-
Trade marks, copyrights, registered designs, and patents granted (both short-term and standard), depending on the exhibition agreement between the organizer and the infringing exhibitors.
Documents and details required:-
The requested documents and details generally include:-(a) original authorization letter; (b) copies of IPR certificates or latest trade mark records in Hong Kong (Note: the IPR Office will conduct a latest IPR online check); (c)Statutory declaration under Section 121 of the Copyright Ordinance and (d)Particulars of infringing products displayed, such as exhibition stand numbers, photos, or samples.
Official fee required (apart from legal fees):-
It is solely depended on trade fair organizers’ discretion. The IPRs owners are advised to review the official website of the trade fairs regarding the onsite IPRs protection measures and procedure.
General Procedure:-
Upon identifying infringing products at the trade fair, the IPR owners shall file the required documents with the Organisers' IPR Office. After conducting a formalities check (including an updated IPR search), an officer of the Organisers' IPR Office will attend the exhibition stands where the infringing products are displayed to collect evidence, such as taking photos and collecting promotional materials. The officer will then prepare a report for the senior officers, who will decide whether to issue the "Taking Down Notice." Upon issuing the Taking Down Notice, the officer will serve the notice to the infringing exhibitors, requesting removal of the infringing products. If the infringing exhibitors refuse to remove the infringing products, the Organisers' IPR Office may impose sanctions, including refusing the infringer permission to join the same exhibition in the future pursuant to the exhibition agreement. If, however, the infringer can raise a valid defense (e.g., it has been granted a license to use the IPRs or has obtained the relevant IPRs, such as a short-term patent based on a utility model granted overseas), the Organizers’ IPR Office will take no further action and leave the parties to resolve the dispute via other means.
Who decides if there is a *prima facie* case of IPR infringement?:-
The senior officers in charge of the Organizers’ IPR Office of the trade fair organizers, who may be their in-house legal counsels or partners of outsourced HK solicitors' firms.
Time frame for taking actions:-
The actions can be taken within half a day to one day if a prima facie case of infringement is identified.
Actions taken at the trade fairs:-
The officer of the Organizers’ IPR Office will request the removal of infringing articles.
Post-exhibition action:-
The IPRs Owners may commence new actions at court to resolve the disputes and claim relief and damages against the infringing exhibitors.
Advantages:-
It is a simple and fast procedure to stop or deter infringing activities at the trade fair, whereby even laymen can file complaints without appointing legal representatives.
Limitations:-
The sanctions of removal of infringing articles at the trade fair may be lenient. Meanwhile, no damages will be awarded.
Conclusion
Upon reviewing the three ways of enforcing IPRs during the short exhibition period, it is highly recommended that IPRs owners develop a strategy to tackle infringement matters according to their budget and resources. On-site investigation prior to taking enforcement action is essential, particularly reviewing and collecting brochures showing the infringing products, taking photos of the displayed infringing items, obtaining the contact details of the infringer, and inquiring about the sources of the infringing products. On-site enforcement actions should be conducted as soon as possible once infringement is identified, in order to stop or deter any potential dealings or transactions between infringers and potential buyers. Post-exhibition enforcement action is also advisable to prevent infringers from continuing to infringe the exhibitors' IPRs in the future.
Disclaimer: This material is provided for general information only. It does not constitute legal or other professional advice nor constitute any lawyer-client relationship between Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum and any user or browser. No liabilities are assumed arising from any reliance of information in this material.
Changes on SHRs
The Law Society of Hong Kong just announced that the Chief Justice has approved the new set of Solicitors’ Hourly Rates for Party and Party Taxation (“SHRs”), which will take effect from 1 April 2026 in that it will apply to all work done from that date onwards. This is the first adjustment since the existing SHRs adopted on 1 January 2018. For legal work done prior to 1 April 2026, the existing SHRs will continue to apply.
The new sets of SHRs with comparison to the existing SHRs are now tabulated for easy reference.
The second four‑yearly review was conducted by a Standing Committee appointed by the Chief Justice, which took Composite Consumer Price Index movements as the starting point and then considered factors such as acceptability and affordability, access to justice, effects on firms of different sizes, impact on legal aid and prevailing economic conditions. The adjustment ranges from 6.9% to 8.00%, representing a modest increase tracking accumulated inflation.
Implications
With higher SHRs, the potential exposures on costs for fully contested proceedings increase. Litigants should be advised on their potential cost exposures/recoverability with the updated SHRs, so that decisions to fight or settle are made on an informed basis.
Litigants should be aware of the distinction between solicitor-client rates and party-and-party SHRs. Party-and-party taxation is designed to ensure that the successful party is compensated for the necessary and proper costs of litigation, but not for all costs actually incurred, thereby keeping litigation costs reasonable and proportionate. Even under the updated SHRs, a successful litigant is unlikely to recover 100% of its actual costs from the opponent. Besides, litigants should note that in line with the position since 2018, the SHRs remain guidelines only – taxing masters are not bound by them and retain a wide discretion to adjust rates upwards or downwards on a case‑by‑case basis.
As legal practitioners, we will facilitate litigation clients to assess cost-proportionality and explore alternative dispute-resolution methods, such as mediation, which are more commercially attractive than full-brown litigation. To assist litigants in pursuit of justice under an affordable fee structure, we may consider offering phased budgets and options such as deploying solicitors of different seniority for complex or strategic works depending on their nature, strategic value and time to be spent in accordance with the economic value and complexity of the dispute.
Disclaimer : This material is provided for general information only. It does not constitute legal or other professional advice nor constitute any lawyer-client relationship between Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum and any user or browser. No liabilities are assumed arising from any reliance of information in this material.
Probate Case Study: Rescuing a Non-Compliant Homemade Will during Pandemic
Background
Losing a beloved one is sorrowful, yet, after undergoing an emotional healing process, one may deal with the lost one’s assets and liabilities by way of application for the grant.
For application for grant of probate, usually, it will be the most straightforward case if a testator has duly executed a will which is most ideally prepared and witnessed by a solicitor to a law firm strictly in accordance with section 5(1), Wills Ordinance (“WO”) during his/her lifetime with sound mental and testamentary capacity, although it is still the prevailing practice of the Probate Registry that time will be taken to carefully review the applications.
Yet, even if a testator had left a will, the application for grant of probate can still be complicated if certain circumstances exist, and additional time for the Probate Registry’s processing and requisitions will be incurred. Here is a case with peculiar elements handled by SFKS, which is of referential value.
The Rule: How shall a Will be Legally Executed?
There is no stringent requirement as to where the testator executes his/her will as long as section 5(1), WO is complied with, in other words, it is not strictly required for a testator to execute a will in a law firm’s office. In fact, for a terminally ill testator who intends to executes his/her final will, most of the law firms’ solicitors (depending on circumstances, together with registered psychiatrists) offer to attend the hospital where the testator is hospitalized to execute the will.
Section 5(1), WO provides that:-
“(1) Subject to section 6, no will shall be valid unless— (Amended 21 of 2024 s. 78)
(a) it is in writing, and signed by the testator, or by some other person in his presence and by his direction;
(b) it appears that the testator intended by his signature to give effect to the will;
(c) the signature is made or acknowledged by the testator in the presence of 2 or more witnesses present at the same time; and
(d) each witness either—
(i) attests and signs the will; or
(ii) acknowledges his signature,
in the presence of the testator (but not necessarily in the presence of any other witness),
but no form of attestation shall be necessary”
Case Study: Execution of a Will by a Hospitalized Testator during Pandemic
However, during the outbreak of Covid-19, stringent visiting restrictions were imposed by the Hospital Authority on public hospitals to combat the pandemic. Hence, it was difficult for even relatives to visit their loved one in the hospital, let alone solicitors or psychiatrists for the purpose of execution of a will, whereas nurses and doctors in public hospitals were generally reluctant to become witness and sign a will in view of the potential responsibilities that might arise therefrom.
Having no other alternatives, the patient concerned had to execute the will alone in the hospital, i.e. without two witnesses, and this was clearly in non- compliance with section 5(1), WO.
The patient passed away. The remaining challenge for the family members and the solicitors was to uphold the non-compliant homemade will and make the best attempt to prove the testamentary intentions therein. We chose the latter.
Alternative Route for Grant of Probate of a Non-Compliant Will
Upon lodging an application of grant of probate of such will, the Probate Registry will review such application with extra care and scrutiny, in particular, the Probate Registry will ask whether the applicant/executor intends to invoke section 5(2), WO, which provides that “A document purporting to embody the testamentary intentions of a deceased person shall, notwithstanding that it has not been executed in accordance with the requirements under subsection (1), be deemed to be duly executed if, upon application, the court is satisfied that there can be no reasonable doubt that the document embodies the testamentary intentions of the deceased person” (emphasis added).
In short, the applicant/executor is required to show and satisfy the court by way of an affidavit/affirmation that the will signed by the testator alone embodied his/her testamentary intentions without any reasonable doubt. Proof of the embodiment of the testator’s “testamentary intentions” is rather fact-sensitive and may differ from case to case. While, generally speaking, in non-contentious probate application, an affidavit/affirmation shall be in the prescribed form, and any document to be used in conjunction with an affidavit/affirmation need not be exhibited to the affidavit/affirmation if the original document is filed in the Probate Registry (rule 65, Non-Contentious Probate Rules), the applicant/executor’s affidavit/affirmation showing the testator’s testamentary intention is not in any prescribed form and it also needs to account for the factual details leading to the execution of the subject will, all documents surrounding the execution of the subject shall be exhibited to explain that the subject will did embody the testator’s “testamentary intentions” and the reason why the testator was unable to duly execute the subject will as per section 5(1), WO.
In this case handled by SFKS, we have prepared on behalf of the applicant an affirmation together with exhibits showing that the subject Will was prepared by our firm and embodied the testamentary intentions of the testator at the material times, in particular given the peculiar circumstances at the time of pandemic, it was not feasible for the subject will to be executed by the testator pursuant to section 5(1), WO.
Nevertheless, as the Probate Registry was cautious about any applications for grant of probate pursuant to section 5(2), WO, in the said affirmation, the applicant was also required to show who would be entitled to share in the estate if the testator had died intestate, and also needed to file consent(s) of those other persons to the ex-parte application under section 5(2), WO.
Gladly, the Probate Registry has eventually been satisfied by the affirmation and the consent(s) prepared by us and allowed the applicant/executor’s application under section 5(2), WO with the probate of the subject will granted to the applicant/executor. This was after almost 1.5 years since the death of the testator, whose last wishes were finally fulfilled.
Conclusion
To conclude, application of grant of probate of a will is supposedly simple and straightforward. However, due to certain circumstances which are out of human control, such application can still be complex. In any event, if a will is prepared by a law firm, coupled with certain peculiar circumstances that the applicant/executor can properly explain, even if it is subsequently not executed in compliance with section 5(1), WO, the applicant still has grounds to satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt that the subject will embodies the testamentary intentions of the testator and have the grant of probate of the subject will to be granted to him under section 5(2), WO.
The following are key takeaways:-
First, it is always better to plan for the making of wills in advance, and not to wait until being hospitalized where you run the risks of making a non-compliant will or making no will.
Second, although a will can be prepared and executed without involving solicitors, it is highly advisable that wherever possible, solicitors should be engaged for drafting a will or document(s) embodying testamentary intentions and ensuring legal compliance, eliminating all risks of the preparation of a homemade will.
Third, family members who found an apparently non-compliant homemade will of a deceased should not just give up, but they should consult solicitors to consider the alternate route under section 5(2), WO though it would take time.
Disclaimer : This material is provided for general information only. It does not constitute legal or other professional advice nor constitute any lawyer-client relationship between Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum and any user or browser. No liabilities are assumed arising from any reliance of information in this material.
