- 24 A B A 105. Mr Clark also relied on section 24(1) of the CO for primary B infringement by issuing copies of the work to the public which is an act C C restricted by copyright in the work. D D 106. E F He also relied on section 31(1)(b) which provides for secondary infringement where a person, without the licence of the copyright owner, “sells or lets for hire, or offers or exposes for sale or E F hire”, and on section 30 in relation to importation into Hong Kong of a copy G H I J of the work. Section 198(1) of the CO provides that import means “to bring, or cause to be brought, into Hong Kong any article”. 107. H Mr Hughes submitted that on the evidence there was no serious question to be tried on copyright infringement. G However, the I J evidence of Humphreys and Elms shows that D1 sold Glamulet charms K L which were shipped to Hong Kong. Qian in his 4th affirmation also confirms that there were Hong Kong sales of some of the items which, K L on the plaintiffs’ case, are infringements. In my view, it is arguable that M N O P selling to the public in Hong Kong would be issuing copies of the work to the public. 108. M N The exhibit HWME–3 to the 1st affidavit of Elms provides pictures of P1’s products with a comparison of Glamulet’s products. O P I have also considered the non-documentary exhibits that have been Q R supplied to the court. I am satisfied that the Glamulet products are substantially similar to P1’s products. There is also some evidence that Q R customers believed that some of the Glamulet products were P1’s S products. S T T U U V V