- 30 A B A 129. As submitted by Mr Clark, in discussions with Mathew as B st set out in the 1 affidavit of Elms, D5 was identified as the CEO of the C D Glamulet business and was involved in making decisions relating to the allegations of infringement. D5 is also the registrant on of a number of C D st Glamulet domain names as set out in the 1 affidavit of Elms (para 46) and E she is also the sole director and shareholder of Rise Beauty. F F 130. G H I J K L E D6 is also the legal representative, executive director and shareholder of D4. He is also the sole director and shareholder of Glamulet Jewellery Ltd, a company incorporated in the United Kingdom. 131. It seems to me that there is a serious question to be tried as to the liabilities of D2, D5 and D6 as joint tortfeasors. 132. Mr Hughes also submitted that the scope of para 2 of the injunction order was too wide and relied on the evidence of Qian at G H I J K L nd paras 45 to 47 of his 2 affirmation. In respect of the websites listed in M N Appendix 2 to the injunction order, Qian’s evidence is that the websites listed in exhibit QZH–26 cannot accept orders from and make shipments to M N Hong Kong. O P O 133. Mr Hughes relied on Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade P Names 15th edn paras 27–059 to 27–066 and submitted that the websites Q identified by Qian do not target consumers in Hong Kong. R R 134. S Q Kerly: I would refer to the propositions set out at para 27–063 in S T T U U V V