- 19 A B A 83. Elms at para 66 of her 1st affidavit said that 3 items of B infringing jewellery which GLAMULET had earlier claimed to have C D removed from their websites continued to be displayed in promotional images on the Glamulet websites and also that 27 of the 54 infringing items C D of jewellery complained of in the correspondence continued to be E F displayed for sale on the websites. There were also 5 additional items of infringing jewellery on the websites. Hogan Lovells asked them to E F remove these items in their letter of 17 July 2015. G H G 84. By his email of 24 July 2015 Mathew gave the response of H Glamulet to Hogan Lovells. He re-iterated a willingness to co-operate and I J K L identified the items which were said to have been taken out of the websites. 85. I J However, the plaintiffs found that new infringing jewellery had again been listed for sale on the Glamulet websites and these have K L been set out in the 1st affidavit of Elms. M N M 86. The plaintiffs then instructed Hogan Lovells to make test N purchases of infringing jewellery. O P O 87. Between 24 July and 29 October 2015 Hogan Lovells made P four test purchases (“the Hogan Lovells Test Purchases”) from the Glamulet Q R websites: glamulet.com, glamulet.hk, glamulet.com.tw and glamulet.sg, to addresses located in Hong Kong. The evidence shows that each of the Q R Hogan Lovells Test Purchases was shipped from Shanghai by D4 and the S purchases were paid for using PayPal (para 70 Elms’ 1st affidavit). S T T U U V V