• 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

  • Belgium – Crowell & Moring Continues Growth In Brussels With Addition Of Privacy And Cybersecurity Partner Lauren Cuyvers. 22 April 2026
  • US – The Los Angeles Business Journal Names Amy Karnikian To 2026 Top 100 Lawyers. 22 April 2026
  • Baker McKenzie Advises Joint Global Coordinators And Bookrunners On MTT Shipping And Logistics’s MYR 652 Million IPO. 21 April 2026
  • Baker McKenzie Advises IOI Properties Group On Its Proposed Acquisition Of Asia Square Tower 2 In Singapore For Approximately USD 1.9 Billion. 21 April 2026
  • Baker McKenzie Advises Resulticks On Its USD 1.5 Billion Acquisition By Diginex Limited. 21 April 2026

NEWS FEED

    April 22, 2026

    Building The Legal Ops Audit Trail: What To Capture, Why It Matters, And How To Do It.

    - Sacha Kirk - Lawcadia,
    April 22, 2026

    The EU Industrial Accelerator Act Proposal’s Significance For The Automotive Industry.

    April 22, 2026

    US – FAR Council Issues Deviation Implementing EO 14398 With FAR 52.222-90 — DEI Restrictions On Federal Contractors.

    April 22, 2026

    Hong Kong – How Final Is The Final Award In Arbitration?

    - Angela Wang - Angela Wang & Co.,
    April 22, 2026

    Deposition Designations Guide: Basics, Best Practices, And Tech.

    April 22, 2026

    Singapore – Case Commentary On DMZ v DNA.

    April 22, 2026

    From Awareness To Advertising: Re-Examining The GLP-1 Drug Boundaries (Part 1).

    April 22, 2026

    Malaysia – Lessons On Moral Rights Of An Author From The Court Of Appeal Case Of Veronica Sainik @ Ronald V Meluha Life Sciences Sdn. Bhd. & Ors.

    April 21, 2026

    Philippines – Power, Policy, And The Price Of Dependence.

    - Nilo T. Divina - DivinaLaw,
    April 21, 2026

    Philippines – Copying Comes At A Cost.

    - 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

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.