- 18 A B A 79. There is also evidence that on 5 May 2015 in a telephone B conversation between Dickie Mok (“Mok”), an associate of Hogan Lovells C D at the time and Mathew, Mathew informed Mok that he worked directly with the CEO of Glamulet who was D5 and that Glamulet was based in C D Shanghai. Mathew acknowledged that there were similarities in some of E F the designs of the infringing jewellery complained of and he informed Mok that Glamulet was preparing some information regarding the E F similarities which would be sent to Hogan Lovells. G H G 80. On 15 May 2015 Hogan Lovells received an email from H Mathew (exhibit HWME–40 to the 1st affidavit of Elms) setting out I J detailed responses to the complaints made by the plaintiffs. Glamulet claimed that it had taken down a total of 33 items out of the 54 items I J complained of as being infringing jewellery and also that it had taken down K all images of P1’s trade marks from Glamulet’s websites and social media K L sites. L M N 81. As set out in the 1st affidavit of Elms, the plaintiffs found that contrary to Glamulet’s claims, 38 of 54 items complained of remained on M N the Glamulet websites and also further new infringing items had been O O added to glamulet.com. P P 82. Q R This led to a further letter from Hogan Lovells to D2 and Rise Beauty dated 29 May 2015 with an enclosure showing the infringing jewellery still displayed on the website. A reply was received by email Q R from Mathew on 12 June 2015 stating that some of the items were removed S and giving reasons why others were not removed. S T T U U V V