Background
A well-known accessories brand applied for an injunction against a watch manufacturer prohibiting the manufacture and sale of copies of its brand watches. Changchun represented the manufacturer (our client), whose position was unfavorable from the start: in earlier litigation our client had in substance been found to have made similar products and ordered to pay damages.
What Was at Stake
With a prior loss on comparable facts, defeating the other side's arguments in the injunction proceedings was not straightforward. The key question was whether our client "had in fact ever manufactured or sold the brand watches in question."
How Changchun Helped
Despite that unfavorable history, Changchun made a concrete showing that our client had never manufactured or sold the brand watches the other side complained of.
The court confirmed that our client does not manufacture those brand watches and issued a recommendation for settlement under which the other side withdrew not only the injunction application but also the accompanying provisional attachment of claims and the criminal complaint. The case resolved the dispute as a whole by pinpointing the facts, despite an unfavorable start. (Outcomes depend on the facts of each case and may differ.)