Asia Pacific Publishing Pte Ltd v Pioneers & Leaders (Publishers) Pte Ltd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Chao Hick Tin JA |
Judgment Date | 27 July 2011 |
Neutral Citation | [2011] SGCA 37 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 147 of 2010 |
Published date | 03 August 2011 |
Year | 2011 |
Hearing Date | 09 February 2011 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Stanley Lai Tze Chang SC, Vignesh Vaerhn, Eunice Lim Ming Hui and Tan Lijun (Allen & Gledhill LLP) |
Defendant Counsel | Tan Tee Jim SC, Ng Guan Zhen (instructed), Irving Choh and Lim Bee Li (KhattarWong) |
Subject Matter | Copyright,Tort |
Citation | [2011] SGCA 37 |
This is an appeal by the appellant, Asia Pacific Publishing Pte Ltd (“the Appellant”), against the decision of a High Court Judge (“the Judge”), allowing the claim by the respondent, Pioneers & Leaders (Publishers) Pte Ltd (“the Respondent”) for copyright infringement and passing off. The Judge had also ordered an injunction to restrain the Appellant from infringing the Respondent’s copyright.
A novel issue raised in this appeal is whether an incorporated body can be considered an “author” for the purposes of copyright law. The Judge found that a company could indeed be an author of an original work that attracted copyright protection. Her detailed reasons can be found in
The Appellant was incorporated in Singapore in 2006, while the Respondent was incorporated in Singapore in 1983. Both the Appellant and the Respondent have been, at all material times, in the business of books and magazines publication.
The Respondent has been publishing a horse-racing magazine known as “
The Appellant, which was incorporated in November 2006, has, on its part, been publishing a horse-racing magazine known as “
From 30 June 2007 to 5 June 2008, both the Appellant’s and Respondent’s horse-racing magazines,
The Race Card consists of the line-up of the horses competing in each race, and readers are able to read about the horses that are participating in the race, their recent physical status, their performance and how they are to be equipped; the jockeys and their recent performances; and trainers’ strike rates. The Results Panel consists of the choice selection of potential winning horses picked by the Respondent’s tipsters. It also has blank spaces to allow readers to fill in the actual result of the race.
The Track Work table shows the preparation that each horse has been put through by its trainer. It includes particulars of the horses’ performance before the race day for up to 21 days and is specially designed to give readers additional information on the recent physical state or condition of the horse. Finally, the Records of Past Performances table has a detailed history of each horse, including its pedigree, owner and stable; the stake money it has won; and the horses’ past performances for the last six runs.
The Respondent alleged that as
Additionally, the Respondent claimed that since 1993,
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
The Appellant also changed the pictures of the horses on the front cover page of
Because of all these similarities, the Respondent claimed that the Appellant had misrepresented to members of the public that
The Judge found that copyright subsisted in the Tables in
In addition, the Judge found that there was originality in the compilation of the Tables found in
In relation to the claim in passing off, the Judge found that without relying on any expert evidence, there was more than sufficient objective evidence to establish a compelling case that the Appellant had deliberately made changes to the cover page of
Three main issues arise for consideration before us in the present appeal, namely:
Before we examine the issues it would be apt to outline the current copyright legislative scheme in Singapore. As this was grandfathered in the United Kingdom (“the UK”), it will be useful to briefly narrate the historical evolution of copyright there. Interestingly, though the concept of copyright was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Public Prosecutor v Ellarry bin Puling and another
...responsibility for his acts or omissions in causing death or being party to causing the death. In Ong Pang Siew v Public Prosecutor [2011] SGCA 37 (“Ong Pang Siew”), the Court of Appeal stated (at [58]) the criteria for establishing the defence of diminished responsibility: It is trite law ......
-
Asia Pacific Publishing Pte Ltd v Pioneers & Leaders (Publishers) Pte Ltd
...Pacific Publishing Pte Ltd Plaintiff and Pioneers & Leaders (Publishers) Pte Ltd Defendant [2011] SGCA 37 Chao Hick Tin JA , Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA and VK Rajah JA Civil Appeal No 147 of 2010 Court of Appeal Copyright—Authorship—Whether incorporated entity could be author—Sections 27, 2......
-
Sarika Connoisseur Cafe Pte Ltd v Ferrero SpA
...this fact. Whether actual damage needs to be proved? Relying on Asia Pacific Publishing Pte Ltd v Pioneers & Leaders (Publishers) Pte Ltd [2011] SGCA 37 (“Asia Pacific Publishing”) (at [139]), the Appellant argues that actual damage needs to be proved where the period of infringement had pa......