- 32 A B A 136. I bear in mind that the Hogan Lovells Test Purchases included B purchases from glamulet.com.tw and glamulet.sg which were shipped to C D Hong Kong. However, the fact that purchases were then made on those sites does not mean that those sites did target Hong Kong consumers. C D As Mr Hughes submitted, some of the sites are foreign sites in foreign E F languages. The evidence of Qian is that the sites listed in exhibit QZH–26 cannot accept orders and shipment to Hong Kong. E F That seems to be the present position on the unchallenged evidence. G H In my view, the scope of the order in para 2 of the injunction order is too wide. The sites listed in QZH–26 should be deleted from Appendix 2 of G H the injunction order namely, item nos 4, 5, 10 to 22 and 24 to 42. I I J Balance of convenience J K 137. The balance of convenience is, in my view, in favour of the K plaintiffs. D1 was only incorporated in March 2015. D2 claims that L M it was not involved in the jewellery business after D1 was set up. The injunction order does not seek to stop D2 from carrying on its business L M of hair extension products. I fail to see what real prejudice D2 would N O suffer if the injunction order were continued until trial. The plaintiffs are good for their undertaking in damages and would be in a position to pay N O them. It seems to me that the damage to the goodwill and reputation of P Q the plaintiffs would be extensive and difficult to quantify and, in my view, damages would not be an adequate remedy for the plaintiffs. Qian has P Q disclosed that none of the defendants have any assets over HK$3,000 in R R Hong Kong apart from the sums disclosed in the bank accounts of D1, D2 S and D5. It does not appear from the evidence that the defendants would be S in a position to pay damages to the plaintiffs if ordered to do so at trial. T T U U V V