• 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

  • Linklaters Advises On Anker Innovations’ HK$4.6bn HKEX IPO. 2 July 2026
  • China – JunHe News Warmly Welcome Counsel Gao Siyu To JunHe. 2 July 2026
  • Quoted In Hubbis Wealth Planning And Structuring Forum Singapore 2026 – Simplify, Ring Fence, And Prepare: Insights From Tan Woon Hum. 2 July 2026
  • Contributed To The Singapore Chapter Of “The True And Fair Requirement In The Asia-pacific Region” Report. 2 July 2026
  • US – Crowell & Moring Adds Antitrust And Competition Senior Counsel Ryan Marth In Minneapolis. 1 July 2026

NEWS FEED

    July 2, 2026

    Does Vietnam’s AI Law Protect Human Rights And Data Privacy In The Era Of Artificial Intelligence?

    July 2, 2026

    Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) And Vietnam’s Amended IP Law — Importance Of The Human Factor.

    July 2, 2026

    India – Prior Use, Passing Off And Interim Relief: Delhi High Court Examines Competing Claims Over Mark.

    - Manisha Singh - Lex Orbis,
    July 2, 2026

    India – Divisional Patent Application Survives Refusal: Delhi High Court Orders Reconsideration.

    - DPS Parmar - Lex Orbis,
    July 2, 2026

    India – Divisional Patent Application Survives Refusal: Delhi High Court Orders Reconsideration.

    - DPS Parmar - Lex Orbis,
    July 2, 2026

    India – Controller Cannot Exceed The Remit And Scope Of Remand Order, Holds Bombay High Court.

    - DPS Parmar - Lex Orbis,
    July 2, 2026

    India – Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026: Key Proposed Changes For Companies, LLPs, IFSC Entities And Auditors.

    - Manisha Singh - Lex Orbis,
    July 2, 2026

    Responsible AI in e-Discovery: A Framework For Preserving Lawyer Judgment.

    July 1, 2026

    India – Marijuana Detection Breathalyser’ Patent Resurrected: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Refusal Order.

    - DPS Parmar - Lex Orbis,
    July 1, 2026

    India – Delhi High Court Sets Aside Patent Refusal For Lack Of Scientific Reasoning And Impermissible Hindsight Analysis.

    - DPS Parmar - Lex Orbis,

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

Room 1601, 16th Floor,               Wing On Centre, 111 Connaught Road Central, Hong Kong

social@conventuslaw.com

Terms of use | Privacy statement © 2026 Conventus Law. All Rights Reserved.