The answer is as follows:

1. Even a legal company protected by Hong Kong law has an obligation to respond when sued in the mainland, and its obligations should be fulfilled when engaging in civil litigation with other legal entities in the mainland. Obligations are no different.

In other words, according to the current relevant judicial interpretations of civil litigation between the mainland and Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Department of Justice has an obligation to assist when requested by the mainland court and needs to assist in serving summons. If the Hong Kong company does not file a lawsuit, it will be considered as a default judgment.

2. The default judgment of a Hong Kong company does not affect the legal effect of the judgment and must still be performed. Considering that the mainland company sued the Hong Kong company and the mainland distributor at the same time, there must be a liability distribution issue.

According to the judicial interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, foreign-related civil litigation involving Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan is also classified as foreign-related civil litigation. Foreign-related civil litigation is different from ordinary civil litigation and has a longer defense period, trial period and execution period. Therefore, the performance of Hong Kong companies It is likely to be later than mainland dealers, and it will take longer to implement (because it requires the assistance of the Hong Kong judicial authorities), but there is no possibility that performance will not be required.

3. The judgment is still legally binding, and the subsequent name change will not affect the legal liability before the change, because according to the current company law, even if the name and office location are changed, it will still be the original business entity, even if it is separated In this case, the merger still requires the legal liability of the previous entity.

At the same time, what the mainland company is pursuing is its trademark infringement. As long as the loss has already occurred and the recovery is within the statute of limitations, the Hong Kong company's subsequent actions will not be used as a transfer.

The main problem is that if a Hong Kong company does not have any assets, enforcement will be more difficult. Hong Kong’s bankruptcy laws are looser than ours, and it will be difficult to pursue the company if it goes bankrupt. It is suggested that mainland distributors and Hong Kong companies should be held jointly and severally liable in the indictment.

The so-called joint liability means that even if the Hong Kong company is unable to perform, the mainland dealer must fulfill all liability for compensation and only has the right to recover from the Hong Kong company after compensation. This is the most beneficial to the mainland company because The dealer's assets are in the mainland, making execution easier and faster.

4. If a Hong Kong company fails to fulfill the judgment, it cannot be generalized whether the shareholders will bear the responsibility. According to the current company law, if it can be proven that the company exists for the purpose of engaging in illegal transactions or has no actual assets at all (the so-called leather company), then the shareholders need to bear all responsibilities. Otherwise, the shareholders will be liable only to the extent of their capital contribution. In this case, that is to say, the company If it is unable to take responsibility, it will go bankrupt, and shareholders will have no additional liability.

Where the shareholder is from does not affect the above judgment criteria, but if the shareholder is a foreigner, issues of applicable law and foreign-related litigation will arise. Generally speaking, if it cannot be proven that the main business of a Hong Kong company is fraud, then it is not possible to directly sue shareholders.

I hope my answer can help you.

Continue to answer your questions as follows:

1. If there is actual evidence to prove that the company is a leather company, then the company and its shareholders can be directly listed as *** co-defendants . However, it must be stated in the indictment that the infringement was authorized by the shareholders, that the company has no ability to take responsibility, and that the original intention of its establishment was even to defraud.

If there is evidence and the lawsuit is not dismissed by the judge or requested to be changed, then the mainland company’s liability for compensation will include the shareholders of the Hong Kong company. As for how the shareholders bear the liability, it depends on the judgment. Generally speaking, the assets of the Hong Kong company will be used to pay off the debt first, and the unpayable portion will only go to the shareholders.

2. If you want shareholders to bear the full responsibility, the method is very simple, requiring shareholders and the Hong Kong company to bear joint and several liability. As mentioned above, joint and several liability does not matter how the responsible parties are divided, but only requires that one of the parties has the ability to repay, which is most beneficial to the plaintiff.

However, it must be noted that it is not that easy to hold shareholders accountable, because it is inherently difficult to prove that there is no actual business behavior and that it is a company. And unlike a business, an inventory of personal property can be more difficult to perform.

But if the shareholder has property in the mainland, it will be much simpler. If he is afraid of escaping and transferring, he can even apply for seizure and freezing (only for property in the mainland. Property in Hong Kong must go through legal procedures there, which is more complex).

PS

It is possible to sue Hong Kong companies in China because this is an infringement case. According to my country’s foreign-related civil litigation procedures, the place where the infringement occurred and the result of the infringement occurred are in China. The court has jurisdiction. At this time, there is no need to apply the plaintiff-defendant principle to sue in Hong Kong. You can also sue in China. You can check Chapter 9 of the revised "Civil Procedure Law". However, the authority to hear cases generally lies with the intermediate people's courts, and only a few grassroots people's courts (such as Guangzhou and Shenzhen) can hear such cases.

Hong Kong applies the common law system. The theory of "piercing the legal person veil" (that is, skipping shell companies and directly pursuing shareholder liability) was first advocated by the common law system, and the earliest case also occurred in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is supported that Hong Kong laws follow the British tradition, but there are still strict restrictions. The restrictions are as mentioned above. You can find out the specific cases in Hong Kong.

Lawyer Yang Ying's opinion is very pertinent. It is definitely the most convenient to sue the dealers in mainland China, but at this time, the dealer's liability issue must be considered. According to my country's Trademark Law, mainland companies can sue both dealers and Hong Kong companies. Although it is more troublesome at this time, the assumption and performance of responsibilities are relatively guaranteed. Of course, if the dealer is rich in wealth, it is okay to just sue him at this time.

But we must not forget that if the dealer is sued, the Hong Kong company will definitely be brought in, because they are the licensors and they have the obligation to ensure the legitimacy of their power. The choice faced at this time is just to sue the Hong Kong company as a co-defendant or as a third party. There is little essential difference between the prosecution at this time and the prosecution at the beginning.

The above opinions are for reference only. Hope it's useful to you.