• 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

  • UK – Opus 2 Expands European Presence To Meet Growing Demand For Its Leading Litigation And Arbitration Solutions And AI Innovation. 8 July 2026
  • Business and Legal Updates (June 2026) 7 July 2026
  • Bird & Bird Advises Gaussion On $28 Million Funding Round. 7 July 2026
  • Bird & Bird Advises Cannae Holdings On Exeter Chiefs Acquisition. 7 July 2026
  • Isle of Man – Senior Associate Phillip Cronje Named In Eprivateclient Crown Dependencies Nextgen Leaders. 7 July 2026

NEWS FEED

    July 8, 2026

    India – Use Of IPO Proceeds: Why Sebi Questions “General Corporate Purpose” More Closely Today?

    July 8, 2026

    India – When The Market Opens And The Investigation Has Already Begun.

    July 8, 2026

    India – Corporate Governance Before IPO: Why “Founder-Led” Cannot Mean “Founder-Controlled?”

    July 8, 2026

    India – IPO Readiness For PE-Backed Companies: Alignment Issues Between Founders And Investors.

    July 8, 2026

    US – At Long Last, Dow Signals Rule Implementing PCB Prohibition And Commercial Exemptions.

    July 8, 2026

    US – Special Master Denies Motion To Exclude MMRs And Brand Sponsors From “Associated Entity” Definition Under NCAA House Settlement; CSC Updates Enforcement Policy.

    July 8, 2026

    AI For Mass Claims: Expert Perspectives On Adoption, Verification, And Trust.

    July 8, 2026

    Legal Questions To Ask Before Signing A Term Sheet In Singapore.

    July 8, 2026

    Philippines – Limits Of Rule-Making.

    - Nilo T. Divina - DivinaLaw,
    July 8, 2026

    Hong Kong – To Sue Or Not To Sue? Court Of Final Appeal Affirms Incorporated Owners’ Managerial Discretion To Pick Their (Legal) Battles.

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.