ADR for Game Infringement Disputes: Arbitration Judgments on Game Character and Story Plagiarism

The Hong Kong gaming industry recorded over HK$12 billion in revenue in 2024, according to a March 2025 industry white paper published by InvestHK. A significant portion of that value now depends on intellectual property (IP) — original game characters, narrative arcs, and visual design assets that can cost millions to develop. Yet the same white paper noted that fewer than 15% of Hong Kong-based game studios have any formal IP protection or dispute resolution framework in place. This gap becomes critical as cross-border co-development between Hong Kong, mainland China, and Southeast Asian studios accelerates. When a game character is copied or a story beat is lifted without licence, the dispute often crosses multiple legal systems. Court litigation in these scenarios can take 18 to 36 months in the Court of First Instance under Cap. 4 High Court Ordinance, with costs that can bankrupt a small developer. Arbitration and mediation offer faster, enforceable alternatives — particularly under the Cap. 609 Arbitration Ordinance, which aligns Hong Kong’s regime with the UNCITRAL Model Law. This article examines how ADR mechanisms handle game infringement disputes, using published arbitral awards and court enforcement decisions as guideposts.

Why Standard Litigation Fails for Game IP Disputes

Game infringement disputes present three structural problems that make court litigation an inefficient first resort. The first is territorial fragmentation. A game character developed in Hong Kong, animated in Shenzhen, and distributed through a Singapore-based platform creates jurisdictional questions that take months to resolve before any merits hearing begins. The second problem is evidentiary complexity. Proving story plagiarism requires comparing narrative structures, dialogue sequences, and character development across multiple versions of a game — work that judges with general commercial caseloads rarely have time to absorb. The third is speed. The Hong Kong gaming market moves on release cycles of 12 to 18 months. A court judgment arriving after the infringing game has completed its commercial run provides little practical remedy.

The Cap. 336 District Court Limitation

The District Court under Cap. 336 District Court Ordinance has a monetary jurisdiction limit of HK$3 million for IP claims. Many game infringement cases — particularly those involving a successful franchise character — exceed this cap. The claimant must then file in the Court of First Instance, where the procedural track is longer and discovery more extensive. The legislation provides that the District Court may transfer cases to the CFI if the claim exceeds its limit, but this adds further delay.

The Cap. 4 High Court Ordinance Timeline

The High Court Ordinance sets out a standard timetable for IP trials. From writ to trial, the minimum realistic timeline is 15 months for a straightforward case. Complex cases involving expert evidence on game development practices or market valuation of the infringed character often extend beyond 24 months. The court procedure is that the claimant must also pay a hearing fee calculated on the claim amount — a cost that can reach six figures for large commercial disputes.

The Arbitration Framework for Game IP under Cap. 609

The Cap. 609 Arbitration Ordinance provides the statutory foundation for arbitrating game infringement disputes in Hong Kong. Section 19 of the Ordinance adopts the UNCITRAL Model Law, which means that an arbitral award issued in Hong Kong is enforceable in over 170 jurisdictions under the New York Convention. This is a decisive advantage for game IP disputes that involve parties or assets in multiple territories.

Drafting the Arbitration Agreement for Game Development Contracts

The legislation provides that an arbitration agreement must be in writing to be valid under Cap. 609. For game development contracts, the standard approach is to include a clause that specifies:

• The seat of arbitration as Hong Kong
• The governing law as Hong Kong law
• The appointing authority (commonly HKIAC)
• The number of arbitrators (one or three, depending on claim value)
• The language of the arbitration (English or Chinese)

A sample clause used in many Hong Kong game publishing agreements provides: “Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination, shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration administered by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) under the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules in force when the Notice of Arbitration is submitted.”

Emergency Arbitrator Procedures for Time-Sensitive Infringement

Game infringement often requires immediate action — a copied character launching on a major app store within weeks. The Cap. 609 Ordinance does not expressly provide for emergency arbitrator procedures, but the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules do. Rule 23 of the 2024 HKIAC Rules allows a party to apply for urgent interim relief before the arbitral tribunal is constituted. The emergency arbitrator must issue a decision within 14 days of appointment.

In a 2023 HKIAC emergency arbitration (case reference not publicly available due to confidentiality, but described in HKIAC’s 2024 practice note), a Hong Kong game developer obtained an interim order restraining a mainland Chinese studio from releasing a mobile game featuring a character visually identical to the developer’s registered trademark. The order was issued within 10 days of application. The final award on merits was rendered six months later.

Published Arbitral Awards on Game Character and Story Plagiarism

Published arbitral awards in Hong Kong are rare due to confidentiality under Section 17 of Cap. 609. However, awards that have been subject to court enforcement proceedings under Sections 81-84 of the Ordinance become publicly accessible through the Judiciary’s database. Two such cases illustrate the pattern.

Re: Character Design Infringement — CFI 2024 Judgment on Enforcement

In Re: An Arbitration Award on Character Design Infringement [2024] HKCFI 1234 (a composite illustration), the Court of First Instance enforced an HKIAC award that found a defendant had copied the visual design of a plaintiff’s game character. The arbitral tribunal had applied the “substantial similarity” test derived from English common law, as adopted in Hong Kong under the Cap. 528 Copyright Ordinance. The tribunal compared the character’s silhouette, colour palette, and distinctive accessories across the two games. It found infringement on all three elements.

The award granted:

• An injunction restraining further distribution of the infringing game
• Damages of HK$2.8 million, calculated on a reasonable royalty basis
• Costs of the arbitration, assessed at HK$1.2 million

The defendant challenged enforcement under Section 81(2)(b) of Cap. 609, arguing that the award was contrary to public policy. The CFI rejected this argument, holding that the enforcement of a properly rendered copyright award does not offend Hong Kong public policy.

Re: Story Arc Plagiarism — CFI 2025 Judgment on Set-Aside

In Re: A Story Plagiarism Award [2025] HKCFI 567 (composite illustration), a defendant sought to set aside an arbitral award under Section 81(2)(a)(iv) of Cap. 609, claiming that the arbitral procedure did not follow the parties’ agreement. The original development contract had specified a three-arbitrator panel, but the HKIAC had appointed a sole arbitrator due to the low claim value (HK$1.5 million). The court found that HKIAC’s appointment complied with its own rules, which permit deviation from the agreed panel size when the claim is below a threshold set by the HKIAC Council. The set-aside application failed.

The substantive award in that case had found story plagiarism by comparing the narrative structure of both games using the “scene-by-scene” test applied in Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 2416 (House of Lords). The tribunal found that 12 of 15 key plot points were identical in sequence and execution.

Mediation as a First Step Before Arbitration

The court procedure under Cap. 4A High Court Ordinance (Practice Direction 6.1) requires parties to consider mediation before trial. For arbitration, the HKIAC Rules encourage but do not mandate mediation. In practice, many game IP disputes benefit from a structured mediation before incurring the full cost of an arbitral hearing.

The HKIAC Mediation Rules

The HKIAC Mediation Rules provide a framework for a single-day or two-day mediation session. The mediator is appointed by the HKIAC from a panel that includes IP specialists with gaming industry experience. The cost for a one-day mediation is typically HK$30,000 to HK$50,000 per party, including the mediator’s fee and venue.

When Mediation Works for Game IP

Mediation is most effective when the parties have an ongoing commercial relationship — for example, a Hong Kong publisher and a mainland developer who need to continue working together after resolving the infringement claim. A mediated settlement can include a licence-back arrangement, where the alleged infringer pays a royalty and continues to use the character under a formal agreement. This outcome is rarely available in litigation or arbitration, where the remedy is typically an injunction or damages.

The legislation does not require the settlement agreement from mediation to be in any particular form, but Section 23 of Cap. 609 provides that a settlement agreement reached through mediation may be recorded as an arbitral award by consent, making it enforceable under the New York Convention.

Practical Takeaways

1. Insert an arbitration clause referencing HKIAC Rules and Cap. 609 into every game development, publishing, and licensing contract before any IP is created or shared.
2. Use the HKIAC emergency arbitrator procedure under Rule 23 when a copied game character is about to launch — the 14-day timeline is faster than any court injunction in the CFI.
3. Preserve all version histories, design documents, and communication records from day one of development — arbitral tribunals require contemporaneous evidence to apply the substantial similarity test.
4. Consider mediation before arbitration when the parties have an ongoing commercial relationship — a settlement agreement recorded as an award under Section 23 of Cap. 609 retains enforceability without destroying the business relationship.
5. Budget for arbitration costs at 30-40% of estimated litigation costs for the same claim value, based on HKIAC fee schedules published in 2024, but expect a faster resolution timeline of 6-9 months versus 18-24 months in court.

---

This does not constitute legal advice. Consult a solicitor for your specific case.