The case of the day is Halo Creative & Design Ltd. v. Comptoir Des Indes Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2015). Halo, a Hong Kong firm that designed high-end furniture, sued Comptoir Des Indes, a Québec competitor, for infringement of a US design patent as well as for copyright infringement and trademark infringement and on various other claims. Comptoir moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of litigation in Canada.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Halo Creative & Design v. Comptoir Des Indes
The case of the day is SDS-IC v. Florida Concentrates International LLC (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015). Florida Concentrates, a Florida firm, sued SDS-IC, a Hong Kong corporation. It served process by delivery of the summons and complaint to SDS-IC’s Hong Kong registered office. The clerk entered a default after SDS-IC failed to answer, but SDS-IC then moved to vacate the default. The trial court held that the service was valid, and SDS-IC appealed.
Continue reading Case of the Day: SDS-IC v. Florida Concentrates International LLC
The case of the day is Shanghai Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Chang (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). The bank sued Kung Da Chang in Hong Kong for failure to pay on a revolving multi-currency loan Chang had obtained in 2008 in order to facilitate the transfer of investments from the Bank of East Asia to the Shanghai Commercial Bank. Chang counterclaimed for fraud and on securities law claims, and he brought a parallel action against the bank in Hong Kong that asserted claims substantially similar to his counterclaims. In that action, the bank asserted counterclaims equivalent to its claims in the first case. As provided by Hong Kong’s rules of procedure, the bank sought an order requiring Chang, a non-resident plaintiff, to post security against the costs of litigation. After a hearing on the merits of the application for security, the Hong Kong court ordered Chang to provide more than HKD $6 million in security against costs in the parallel action in which it was a plaintiff. When Chang failed to post the security, the court dismissed the parallel claim. Later, the court awarded judgment for USD $9 million for the bank on its claims and against Chang on his counterclaims in the first case. Chang did not appeal from any of the decisions. The bank sought recognition and enforcement of the judgment in Washington under the UFMJRA. The King County Superior Court entered summary judgment for the bank, and Chang appealed.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Shanghai Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Chang