Megnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Soon Lian Hock

An interesting case in Malaysia about the case for copyright.
In the lawsuit Megnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Soon Lian Hock, plaintiff manufactures and markets security systems for cars with brand THEF-PRO, it has developed and has drawings of all elements in the system.Soon Lian Hock started selling metal elements of the systems which are identical to those of the plaintiff's drawings. This is the reason why Megnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd accused Soon Lian Hock in violation of copyright.In its decision The High Court accepted that the controversial drawings of the metal elements are copyright as author showed enough creative effort.The Court accepts that there is a breach of copyright claimant further that the metal elements are an essential part of security systems. All this leads to distortion and the reputation of the plaintiff, a producer of systems.information a Michael Soo and Lin li Lee for International Law Office.
http://ipestonia.ning.com/profiles/blogs/copyright-in-malaysia



In Megnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Soon Lian Hock (Performance Audio & Car Accessories Enterprise) the plaintiff, a manufacturer and distributor of anti-theft systems for a certain brand of cars sold under the trademark THEF-PRO since 1991, asserted that it was the owner of copyright subsisting in certain drawings of the metal components of the anti-theft system and three-dimensional reproductions of the drawings.(1)
The plaintiff adduced evidence that the defendant, a sole proprietor selling car accessories, had infringed the copyright in the plaintiff's works by selling and offering for sale metal components of an anti-theft system which were entire or substantial reproductions of the works without the plaintiff's licence or consent. The plaintiff had previously obtained consent judgment against other parties for infringement of its works.
The High Court allowed the plaintiff's claim after finding copyright subsisted in the works on the grounds that the author (ie, the artist) had expended sufficient effort and skill in the creation of the works.
The High Court found that the author of the works, who was the managing director of the plaintiff, was also the plaintiff's employee. Since the works were made in the course of his employment, copyright in the works were deemed to have been transferred to the plaintiff.

The High Court took the view that the fact that the author was the managing director of the plaintiff did not mean that he was not an employee of the plaintiff, reasoning that (i) he was paid a salary to create the works, and (ii) in a typical small-scale family business, it was common for a managing director or an executive director to manage the entire business by him or herself.
The High Court found that there was infringement as the defendant's metal components had copied a substantial part of the plaintiff's works.
The High Court also held that the defendant had committed the tort of unlawful interference with trade. The defendant had interfered with the plaintiff's trade unlawfully by selling and offering for sale an anti-theft system which infringed the plaintiff's copyright. This had resulted in injury to the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation and consequently had adversely affected sales of the plaintiff's products. The High Court granted the plaintiff an injunction, an order for delivery up and an order for disclosure, damages, interest and costs. Damages were assessed at RM644,400 with interest at 8% per annum from the date of judgment (December 22 2008) to the date of realization.
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/Detail.aspx?g=c3474291-f0fc-48c8-8a9d-d79f74bb6aae


About the Injunction souce:

CIVIL PROCEDURE
Injunction - Application for - Restraining defendant from infringement and interference with plaintiff's trade of business - Infringement - Allegation of - Whether proved - Whether defendant infringed plaintiff's copyright by selling and distributing metal components of anti-theft system which were reproductions of plaintiff's artistic work without consent - Whether plaintiff expended sufficient effort to make work original in character and eligible for copyright - Copyright Act 1987, s. 7(3)(a) - Whether plaintiff owner of copyright - Whether copyright pursuant to s. 26(2)(b) Copyright Act 1987 - Visual comparison between plaintiff's drawings and defendant's metal components - Whether existed substantial objective similarity - Whether an infringement of copyright established - Copyright Act 1987, s. 13(e) - Whether defendant unlawfully interfered with plaintiff's trade - Whether injunction and damages granted

COPYRIGHT
Infringement - Allegation of - Whether proved - Whether defendant infringed plaintiff's copyright by selling and distributing metal components of anti-theft system which were reproductions of plaintiff's artistic work without consent - Whether plaintiff expended sufficient effort to make work original in character and eligible for copyright - Copyright Act 1987, s. 7(3)(a) - Whether plaintiff owner of copyright - Whether copyright pursuant to s. 26(2)(b) Copyright Act 1987 - Visual comparison between plaintiff's drawings and defendant's metal components - Whether existed substantial objective similarity - Whether an infringement of copyright established - Copyright Act 1987, s. 13(e) - Whether defendant unlawfully interfered with plaintiff's trade - Restitution in integrum - Whether plaintiff should be awarded damages。

http://www.cljlaw.com/CLJ_Bulletin/Bulletin_11_2009.htm