Mei Qiming, the elder brother of the late music queen Anita Mui, filed a complaint with the High Court in December last year once morest the An Le film that made the “Anita Mui” biographical film, claiming that the film infringed the “Anita Mui” trademark held by him, and asked the court to order a ban on the An Le film and Relevant persons continued to infringe their trademarks and demanded compensation for damages. The case was originally scheduled to be heard in the High Court today (25th), but Anle requested that the case be dropped, saying that Mei Qiming had no justification. Mei Qiming initially stated that the application might not be processed temporarily and asked to adjourn the case, but High Court Judge Lu Qikang pointed out that if he failed to file a reasonable cause of action by then, it would ultimately be just “time to waste”. Mei Qiming said that he would hire a lawyer to handle the case. The judge finally decided to give him the opportunity to hire a lawyer and postponed Anle’s application for removal to July 25.
The plaintiff is Mei Qiming and the defendant is Anle Film Co., Ltd. Plaintiffs were not represented by attorneys and presented themselves. The defendant pointed out that the two registered trademarks of the plaintiff only involved jewelry and watches, and had nothing to do with movies. As for another trademark he is applying for, it involves goods and services, including publication, but the application has not been approved. According to the relevant regulations, the plaintiff needs to obtain approval for registration before the holder of such a trademark can sue the defendant for infringement. Therefore, it is believed that the plaintiff has no grounds, so the judge is asked to immediately drop the case.
The plaintiff initially stated that “because I was under pressure from the outside world and my mother, I mightn’t handle it.” He also pointed out that there was no preparation at present, so he requested that the application be postponed for three months before processing. However, the judge pointed out that there must be a reasonable reason for the postponement. The plaintiff later stated that he would hire a lawyer to represent him and that he would apply for legal aid. The judge pointed out that it would not benefit the plaintiff to postpone the case without a period of time, so he strongly suggested that the plaintiff first seek legal advice from a lawyer who is familiar with trademarks, otherwise it will only increase the cost of the case. Judges handling trademark cases, when the plaintiff is not familiar with the relevant laws, “have no reason to talk to me regarding the law”. The judge finally decided to give the plaintiff the opportunity to hire a lawyer and adjourned the case for two months.
Case number: HCIP 8/2022
