That is to say, according to the relevant judicial interpretations of the current civil litigation in the Mainland and Hong Kong, the Department of Justice in Hong Kong is obliged to provide assistance at the request of the mainland courts, and needs assistance in serving summonses.
If the Hong Kong company does not respond to the lawsuit, it will be sentenced to absence.
2. The default judgment of the Hong Kong company does not affect the legal effect of the judgment, and it must still be performed.
Considering that mainland companies are suing Hong Kong companies and mainland distributors at the same time, there must be a problem of responsibility allocation.
According to the judicial interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan also belong to foreign-related civil litigation. Foreign-related civil litigation is different from ordinary civil litigation, which has a long defense period, trial period and execution period. Therefore, the performance of Hong Kong companies is likely to be later than that of mainland distributors, and it will take a long time to implement (because it needs the assistance of Hong Kong judicial organs), but there is no possibility that it is not necessary to perform.
3. The judgment still has legal effect, and the name change afterwards does not affect the legal liability investigation before the change, because according to the current company law, even if the name and office space are changed, it is still the original business entity, and even if it is divided or merged, it still needs to bear the legal liability of the former entity.
At the same time, mainland companies are investigating his trademark infringement. As long as the loss has occurred and the recovery is still within the limitation of action, it will not be transferred by the future behavior of the Hong Kong company. The main problem is that if Hong Kong companies do not have any assets, it will be more difficult to implement. Hong Kong's bankruptcy law is looser than ours, and it will be difficult to pursue the bankruptcy of a company.
It is suggested that mainland distributors and Hong Kong companies can be required to bear joint liability in the indictment.
The so-called joint liability, even if the Hong Kong company is unable to perform it, the mainland distributor must perform all the compensation responsibilities. After compensation, it only enjoys the right to recover from the Hong Kong company, which is most beneficial to the mainland company, because the distributor's assets are in the mainland, and it is easier and faster to implement.
4. If the Hong Kong company fails to perform the judgment, whether the shareholders bear the responsibility cannot be generalized.
According to the current company law, if it can be proved that the company itself is engaged in illegal transactions or has no actual assets (so-called shell companies), then shareholders need to bear all the responsibilities, otherwise shareholders will bear the responsibilities within the capital contribution limit, that is to say, the company will go bankrupt if it is unable to bear the responsibilities, and shareholders will have no additional responsibilities.
Where the shareholders come from does not affect the above criteria, but if the shareholders are foreigners, there will be problems of law application and foreign litigation.
Generally speaking, if it is impossible to prove that Hong Kong companies are mainly engaged in fraud, then it is impossible 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 bag 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 inspired by shareholders, and the company did not have the ability to bear responsibility, and even the original intention was for fraud and other facts.
If there is evidence that the lawsuit has not been rejected by the judge or changed, then the shareholders of the Hong Kong company will be included in the responsibility of the mainland company.
As for how shareholders bear the responsibility, it depends on the judgment. Generally speaking, the assets of Hong Kong companies will be paid off first, and the outstanding part will be paid to shareholders.
2. If you want to bear it all by shareholders, the method is simple, requiring shareholders and Hong Kong companies to bear joint and several liabilities.
As mentioned above, joint liability does not require how to distribute among the responsible persons, but only requires one of them to have the ability to repay, which is most beneficial to the plaintiff.
However, it must be noted that it is not so easy to investigate the shareholders' responsibility, because it is difficult for the shell company to prove that there is no actual business behavior.
And unlike companies, it will be more difficult to check personal property.
However, if shareholders have property in the mainland, it will be much easier, and they may even apply for seizure and freezing for fear of their escape and transfer (it is only the property in the mainland, and it is more complicated for Hong Kong property to go through legal procedures there).
PS can sue Hong Kong companies in China, because this is an infringement case. According to China's foreign-related civil procedure, the place where the infringement occurred and the place where the infringement result occurred were in China, and the domestic courts had jurisdiction. At this time, it is not necessary to apply the plaintiff-to-defendant principle to go to Hong Kong to prosecute, and domestic prosecution is also possible. You can check Chapter 9 of the revised Civil Procedure Law.
However, the trial authority is generally in the intermediate people's court, and only a few grass-roots people's courts (such as Guangzhou and Shenzhen) can try such cases.
Hong Kong applies the Anglo-American legal system, and the theory of "unveiling the corporate veil" (that is, skipping shell companies and directly investigating shareholders' responsibilities) was first advocated by the Anglo-American legal system, and the earliest case also occurred in Britain.
Therefore, we also support Hong Kong law to follow the British tradition, but there are still strict restrictions. The limitations are described above. Details can be found in the case of Hong Kong.
Lawyer Angelababy's opinion is very pertinent. It is of course the most convenient to sue the dealers in Chinese mainland, but at this time, we must consider the responsibilities of the dealers.
According to China's trademark law, mainland companies can sue both distributors and Hong Kong companies. Although it is more troublesome at this time, the commitment and performance of responsibilities are more secure.
Of course, if the dealer is rich in property, just sue him at this time.
But don't forget that suing dealers will definitely bring in Hong Kong companies, because they are authorized persons, and they have the obligation to ensure the legitimacy of their power.
At this time, the choice is only to sue the Hong Kong company as a co-defendant or as a third party.
There is no essential difference between this time and the initial prosecution.
The above comments are for reference only.
I hope it works for you.