- 17 A B A all transactions are processed by D2, 100% owned subsidiary of Rise Beauty B UK Ltd (“Rise Beauty”). It also stated that the site was controlled and C C operated by D2. D D 76. E F nd Qian said in his 2 affirmation that D2 has been in the business of hair extension products and not jewellery and that D2 does not have retail shops or other operation in Hong Kong whether for its own business or the business of marketing jewellery. G H E F He said that before the full launch of the Glamulet business, the same website designers that had been engaged by D2 were engaged by D1 to set up the Glamulet websites G H and that the designers simply copied the content of D2’s website for the I J information, including the terms and conditions. It was done, according to Qian, as a temporary measure out of convenience because D2 had been I J doing e-commerce business for years and the fact that D1 and D2 belonged K L to the same group. He went on to say that after D1 was established in March 2015, D2’s name was removed and D2 had no involvement in D1’s K L business at all. M N M 77. By letter dated 9 April 2015 the plaintiffs’ solicitors N (“Hogan Lovells”) sent a cease and desist letter to D2 and Rise Beauty O P (exhibit HWME–38 to the 1st affidavit of Elms). As there was no response, Hogan Lovells contacted GLAMULET at the phone number of O P the GLAMULET website and made contact with Mathew who claimed to Q Q be a Customer Service Manager for the GLAMULET business in Shanghai. R On his request, the cease and desist letter was re-sent to his email address R which he provided to Hogan Lovells. S T S 78. There was then correspondence and email communication T between Mathew and Hogan Lovells which are in evidence. U U V V