Hong Kong's intellectual property courts have entered 2026 with a measurably sharper posture toward infringement claims. The Hong Kong High Court has tightened procedural requirements for interim injunctions, raised the threshold for establishing a prima facie infringement case. Additionally. Signalled a greater willingness to award costs against parties who file speculative or poorly documented claims. For international businesses holding registered rights in the territory, these shifts carry immediate practical consequences.
IP enforcement developments in Hong Kong reflect a series of court-driven procedural changes that took effect in the first quarter of 2026. Affected parties include trademark owners, copyright holders, and licensees pursuing infringement claims before Hong Kong courts. Businesses with pending or planned enforcement actions should review their evidentiary files and procedural strategies before initiating new proceedings.
This alert sets out what has changed, which business categories are most exposed, and the five immediate steps international companies should take now.
What has changed and when it took effect
The Hong Kong High Court issued updated practice directions governing intellectual property proceedings in early 2026. These directions apply to all new IP litigation filed from the date of their publication and to pending matters at the court's discretion.
Three shifts stand out for international IP holders.
First, the evidentiary bar for interim injunctions has risen. Applicants must now submit more detailed supporting evidence at the initial without-notice stage. Courts have indicated that bare assertions of likelihood of confusion – without survey evidence, sales data, or documented instances of actual confusion – will receive less deference than before.
Second, the court has signalled a stricter approach to Nice classification (the international system for categorising goods and services in trademark registration) in the context of infringement scope. A trademark application covering broadly stated classes may receive narrower judicial interpretation when the rights holder cannot demonstrate genuine use across all claimed categories. This directly affects the practical reach of a trademark registration in enforcement proceedings.
Third, opposition proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry have been brought into closer alignment with court timelines. Parties filing an opposition are now expected to submit consolidated evidence earlier in the process. This compresses the window for international companies to gather and translate evidence from foreign markets.
The Companies Registry Hong Kong has separately updated its guidance on the use of corporate names that incorporate registered trademarks. Entities whose registered names may conflict with third-party IP rights face a heightened risk of challenge under both corporate legislation and intellectual property legislation.
Who is affected and what is at risk
The following business categories face the most direct exposure to these developments.
- International brands with trademark registrations in Hong Kong that have not been actively used or monitored in recent years
- Technology companies with software, platform, or AI-related IP that has not been formally registered under the relevant IP registration categories
- Licensees and distributors who rely on contractual rights rather than direct IP registration to enforce against local infringers
- Companies engaged in active infringement claims where the evidence file was assembled under earlier, more permissive standards
- Businesses whose corporate names registered at the Companies Registry overlap with third-party trademark portfolios
The risk of inaction is concrete. An infringement claim filed without meeting the revised evidentiary standards may be dismissed at the interim stage. Worse, the court may award costs to the respondent. This means a poorly prepared enforcement action can produce not only a failed injunction but a financial liability for the claimant.
Companies operating in the digital and AI sectors should also note that the court's narrower reading of IP registration scope is particularly consequential for technology-related trademarks. The intersection of AI tools and IP rights is an area of growing scrutiny. Our analysis of AI and technology law in Hong Kong sets out the broader regulatory context for technology companies managing IP in this jurisdiction.
For a tailored strategy on IP enforcement in Hong Kong, reach out to info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Immediate actions for international companies
The following five steps should be completed as a matter of priority.
1. Audit your Hong Kong IP registration portfolio. Verify that each registered trademark, copyright, or design right is accurately categorised under the current Nice classification system. Identify any classes where genuine use cannot be demonstrated. Thin or dormant registrations are now more vulnerable to challenge in both opposition proceedings and infringement defences.
2. Strengthen evidentiary files before filing or continuing enforcement actions. Any pending or planned infringement claim before the Hong Kong High Court should be reviewed against the new evidentiary standards. This means assembling documented instances of confusion, evidence of actual use in each claimed class, and – where commercially proportionate – consumer survey data.
3. Review opposition proceedings timelines. If you have filed or are considering an opposition against a competing trademark application, confirm that your evidence is ready for early submission. The compressed timeline leaves little room to gather translations or third-party declarations after filing.
4. Check corporate name registrations for IP conflicts. If your entity is registered at the Companies Registry Hong Kong under a name that incorporates a brand element. Verify that no third party holds a conflicting trademark registration. The updated guidance increases the risk of formal challenge even where the name was registered without objection in prior years.
5. Assess HKIAC arbitration as an alternative enforcement route. The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) offers a confidential forum for resolving IP disputes, particularly in licensing and technology contexts. Where the counterparty is based in a jurisdiction with strong arbitral enforcement under international conventions, HKIAC proceedings may be faster and more cost-effective than court litigation under the revised standards. Our detailed advisory on IP protection and enforcement in Hong Kong addresses both the litigation and arbitration pathways in full.
Companies monitoring parallel developments across the region may also find our related alert on IP enforcement shifts in the UAE a useful comparative reference.
About Ferraz & Whitmore
Ferraz & Whitmore is an international law firm based in Lisbon, advising business clients across 46 jurisdictions. As a law firm in Hong Kong and across the Asia-Pacific region, our team supports international companies on IP registration, infringement claims, opposition proceedings, and cross-border enforcement strategy. We combine Portuguese civil law expertise with English common law tradition – a dual foundation that is directly relevant to Hong Kong's common law system. Our Asia-Pacific practice, led by practitioners with experience before the Hong Kong High Court and HKIAC, serves technology companies, brand owners, and institutional investors who need a lawyer in Hong Kong with cross-border capability. The firm is a member of leading international legal associations focused on intellectual property and technology regulation across civil law and common law jurisdictions. To discuss how these court practice developments affect your IP position in Hong Kong, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.