KUALA LUMPUR (Sept 17): China-based Huawei Technologies Co Ltd obtained a summary judgement from the High Court last month against a Kulim-based mobile phone-accessory company for infringing the phone company’s trademark by selling counterfeit chargers, adapters, and earphones on two popular mobile platforms.

Judicial Commissioner (JC) Azlan Sulaiman granted leave (permission) for Huawei Technologies to enter the summary judgement on 30-year-old Wong Choon Keat, who is the sole proprietor of One Mobile 18 Accessories, which sells those items on Lazada and Shopee.

In allowing the summary judgement to be entered on Aug 15 against Wong, the High Court ruled that Wong had failed to raise any triable issues to warrant denying Huawei Technologies’ application to seek the summary judgement.

A summary judgement is a judgement that can be decided by the court without going through a full trial if the court finds there is a strong case.

Following that, Azlan said Wong had interfered with Huawei Technologies’ trade, and gave the injunction to restrain Wong or his agents from infringing 15 of the company’s trademarks, and the delivery of all goods and material articles that infringed upon Huawei Technologies’ trademarks which are in his custody or control, for purpose of destruction within 14 days of the court order.

In addition, the court ordered Wong to surrender all documents, advertisements, invoices, purchase orders, sales records, contracts, bank statements, accounts, emails, electronic messages, social media accounts relating to the importation, distribution, sales, and promotion of the products.

Defendant must furnish Huawei with details of every person who supplied or bought the counterfeit products

Wong was also ordered to provide Huawei Technologies with the name, address, telephone number, email address, and other contact details of every person who had supplied or offered to supply Wong with the goods, as well as that of every person to whom he had sold the items.

Additionally, Wong must publish an apology within 14 days of the court order.

Furthermore, Azlan ordered that damages for unlawful interference of Huawei Technologies’ trade to be assessed with interests of 5% per annum from full settlement and directed Wong to pay RM8,000 in costs.

Court’s grounds of decision and Kulim-based owner appealing

Wong filed a notice of appeal dated Sept 13 against the court decision, while Huawei Technologies on the same date filed for damages to be ascertained via affidavit.

In Azlan’s grounds dated Sept 15, which was released on Tuesday, Huawei Technologies had filed the suit on Jan 18 this year, and the China-based company had established its case for summary judgement to be entered against Wong. The court further ruled that the defendant had not raised any defence to the Huawei Technologies’ claim for infringement of its trademark.

“Hence, Huawei Technologies is entitled to its claim to summary judgement for this claim,” he said.

“Wong neither challenged nor rebutted the validity of Huawei Technologies’ trademarks or that its products bore marks resembling to the claimant’s marks, and there was no evidence whatsoever that the defendant had the plaintiff’s consent or authority to do so,” the JC said.

Azlan said Wong had only raised whether those online platforms that were put up on Shopee or Lazada belonged to him, whether he had exclusive possession of the Kulim premises during a raid, and whether Huawei Technologies suffered loss of income, good name, and reputation.

“I reject the defendant’s contention that these issues raise a triable issue, as Wong did not adduce any evidence that he had not been using the Shopee and Lazada platforms, he did not deny he is the sole proprietor of One Mobile 18 Accessories that operates out of the Kulim premises that sells and distributes these accessories to the two online platforms.

“Furthermore, Wong did not deny or refute the offending products bore Huawei Technologies’ marks and were counterfeit, did not deny or refute or adduce any evidence that the offending products were his, and failed to name, identify, or adduce any evidence that he was not in possession of the Kulim premises following a seizure order in a raid which he had signed and does not refute or disassociate with,” the court said.

In the court’s view, Azlan said that whenever someone without authority of the trademark order particularly possesses counterfeit goods and sells them, then it can be assumed the person does so to make a profit out of riding on that trademark, resulting in the trademark owner suffering loss of income, good name and reputation.

“Ultimately, I find the defendant has not raised any defence or any issue for trial on Huawei Technologies’ claim for trademark infringement. I therefore find the plaintiff has indeed established a case for summary judgement of its claim for trademark infringement of the plaintiff’s marks,” the court added.

The case against Wong transpired when Huawei Technologies made a ‘trap purchase’ on Aug 24 last year from Wong’s outlet for one unit of charger sold as “Huawei Supercharge 4.5A/5A Type C Cable and Charger”, and upon inspection found it to be a counterfeit.

On Oct 30, the Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Ministry enforcement unit seized 178 units of Wong’s products bearing Huawei Technologies’ trademarks, namely 100 chargers, 70 adapters, and eight earphones which Wong signed off on and were acknowledged as counterfeit products.

Defendant continued trading by changing store names

Despite the raid and Huawei Technologies’ demand, Wong changed the store name of his trade on the two online platforms, and continued selling counterfeit accessories, and upon filing the suit, Wong changed the store name again.

An ex-parte (single party) injunction was given by the court on Feb 16 this year, essentially restraining Wong from using or selling any products bearing Huawei Technologies’ trademark before the summary judgement was entered last month.

Huawei Technologies was represented by Wendy Lam and Wong Jia Yee of Messrs V Chong W Lam, while Wong was represented by Savinder Singh of Messrs Lee Law Office.