• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Conventus Law

Conventus Law

Conventus Law

  • About Us
  • Channels
    • Jurisdiction Channel
    • Practice Area Channel
    • Industry Channel
    • Business Of Law
    • Law Firms
    • Special Reports
  • Video
  • Events
  • Explore
  • Search
  • Membership
  • Conventus Doc
x
Search

More results...

Generic filters
Home » Special Report » Taking Action Against Shadow Companies In Hong Kong.

Taking Action Against Shadow Companies In Hong Kong.

October 2, 2015

October 2, 2015 by

5 September, 2015 

 

 

Shadow Companies – The Problem
 
A shadow company is a Hong Kong-registered company that uses a famous brand or company name as part of its own name, whilst being totally unconnected to the brand owner.
 
Shadow companies are normally used as fronts to allow individuals behind them to trade off the reputation of a brand owner’s name in the PRC. 

The key elements of a shadow company are:
 
a. it has registered a name which incorporates the name of a well known brand;
b. its director(s)/shareholder(s) are PRC individuals;
c. its company secretary is a secretarial company which will usually incorporate the shadow company and provide its registered office address; and
d. it will authorise a separate PRC entity, which is often connected to the individuals behind the shadow company, to use its name, claiming authorisation from the brand owner.

In our experience, the shadow company will register their registered office address as their place of business with the Inland Revenue so that they have a Business Registration Certificate, giving the illusion they are trading in Hong Kong. 
 
In addition, the shadow company may also apply for a Hong Kong trademark under different classes to those used by the legitimate brand owner. 
 
Shadow companies pose substantial risks of financial and reputational damage to brand owners.

 

What Can You Do As Brand Owner?

 

Taking Action Against Shadow Companies In Hong Kong.

 

The first step would be to send a cease and desist letter to the shadow company demanding they stop infringing your intellectual property rights. The threat of using court proceedings may cause the infringement to cease and the director of the shadow company to change the company name. 
 
If no response is made, the next step would be to issue court proceedings against the shadow company. 
 
Once a writ is issued it is unusual for the shadow company to defend the proceedings. Normally default judgment and an injunction can be obtained within 2 months of proceedings being issued.
 
The last step, after an injunction has been ordered, would be to serve the injunction on the Companies Registry. The Companies Registrar will require the company to change its name within 6 weeks of being informed of the injunction. In the event the director does not change the name of the shadow company the Companies Registrar will arrange for the company’s registered number to be substituted in place of its name. 

CH-CoatedSHlogo_CMYK-withSpace

 

For further information, please contact:

 

Jezamine Fewins, Partner, Stephenson Harwood

jezamine.fewins@shlegal.com

Primary Sidebar

PRESS RELEASES

  • FiinGroup & Indochine Counsel Launch Joint Publication On Vietnam’s Data Law & Implications For Businesses In The Future. 3 September 2025
  • US – Crowell & Moring Lawyers Author Chapter In Global Arbitration Review’s The Guide To Construction Arbitration. 3 September 2025
  • Philippines – Power Podcast Wins Quill Merit Award. 2 September 2025
  • Philippines – Turning The Tide For Philippine Oil And Gas Exploration. 2 September 2025
  • Baker McKenzie Advises GLP On Up To USD 1.5 Billion Investment From Abu Dhabi Investment Authority. 2 September 2025

NEWS FEED

    September 3, 2025

    China – Exploring Optimal Solutions To Protect Trade Secrets —based On Analysis Of The New Guidelines On Trade Secrets Protection.

    September 3, 2025

    India – Delhi High Court Upholds Patent Refusal Under Section 3(k).

    - DPS Parmar - Lex Orbis,
    September 3, 2025

    India – Order Vacating Interim Injunction Set Aside By Delhi High Court In Patent Infringement Suit.

    - DPS Parmar - Lex Orbis,
    September 3, 2025

    India – Rejecting Patent Without Reasons: Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice.

    - DPS Parmar - Lex Orbis,
    September 3, 2025

    India – Patent Grant No Defence To Preclude Infringement Of Plaintiff’s Patent: Injunction Allowed.

    - DPS Parmar - Lex Orbis,
    September 3, 2025

    Why GCs Need Legal Data Strategies.

    September 3, 2025

    US – Landmark Proposed Rule May Open American Skies To Expanded Commercial Drone Deployments.

    September 3, 2025

    Facing The Fraud Challenge: How UK Charities Must Adapt To The New Failure To Prevent Fraud Offence.

    September 3, 2025

    Singapore – Your Client Didn’t Pay – Now What? A Business Owner’s Guide To Debt Recovery Without Burning Bridges.

    September 2, 2025

    Philippines – “On Paper” Owners.

    - Nilo T. Divina - DivinaLaw,

Footer

Conventus Law
  • Linkedin
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

CONVENTUS LAW

  • About Us
  • Explore
  • Video
  • Events
  • Contact Us
  • Jurisdiction Channel
  • Practice Area Channel
  • Industry Channel
  • Law Firms
  • Business Of Law
  • Special Reports

OTHERS

CONVENTUS DOCS
CONVENTUS PEOPLE

3/f, 13/F, Two Harbourfront, 22 Tak Fung Street, Hunghom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

social@conventuslaw.com

Terms of use | Privacy statement © 2025 Conventus Law. All Rights Reserved.