- 33 A B C A Delay 138. B Mr Hughes also complained about the plaintiffs’ delay in C applying for injunctive relief. He submitted that at least from 25 July D E 2015 when some of the Hogan Lovells Test Purchases had been made there had been undue delay in applying for interlocutory relief. He relied on D E King Fung Vacuum Ltd & others v Toto Toys Ltd & others [2006] 2 F G HKLRD 785; Wong Chung Ming Development Fund Co Ltd v Profit Surplus Ltd [2009] 3 HKLRD 514; and also my judgment in Abbot GmbH F G & Co KG v Pharmareg Consulting Co Ltd [2009] 3 HKLRD 524. H I H 139. I would observe that at the return date on 18 December 2015 I the question of delay was raised by counsel then appearing for D1. J L Chan J was not impressed with the complaint of delay as he said that: K “I do not think the argument of delay can defeat the continuation of these paragraphs on the facts of this case.” L M N J K L 140. There was no appeal from the decision of L Chan J. 141. Each case, of course, depends on its own facts. The result of M N the communications between Hogan Lovells and Mathew was that some of O O the products were removed from the Glamulet websites in June and P Q July 2015. However, as explained in the 1st affidavit of Elms, it was apparent that by 24 July 2015 there was repeated refusal to remove some of P Q the items complained of by the plaintiffs and there was also the addition of R S T U V further infringing items of jewellery on the Glamulet websites. This led to the Hogan Lovells Test Purchases. 142. business. As Mr Clark submitted, the Glamulet business was an online Qian said that D1 and D2 do not operate in Hong Kong. R S T U V