Global Yellow Pages Ltd v Promedia Directories Pte Ltd and another matter
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 19 April 2017 |
Neutral Citation | [2017] SGCA 28 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Bryan Ghows and Wang Yingyu (Via Law Corporation) |
Docket Number | CA/Civil Appeal No 19 of 2016 and CA/Summons No 56 of 2016 |
Date | 19 April 2017 |
Hearing Date | 23 November 2016 |
Subject Matter | Authorship,Compilations,Subject matter,Defence,Copyright,Infringement,Groundless threat |
Published date | 24 May 2017 |
Defendant Counsel | and Professor David Llewelyn (School of Law, Singapore Management University) as amicus curiae.,G Radakrishnan, Mark Teng and Gillian Tan (Infinitus Law Corporation) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Citation | [2017] SGCA 28 |
Year | 2017 |
The present appeal involves two competing publishers of telephone directories. The plaintiff in the suit below, Global Yellow Pages Limited (“GYP”), appeals against the decision of the High Court Judge (“the Judge”) to dismiss its claim for breach of copyright by the defendant, Promedia Directories Pte Ltd (“Promedia”). The Judge’s judgment is reported as
GYP claimed that Promedia infringed its copyright in the Internet Yellow Pages (an online directory built around a search engine and maintained at http://www.yellowpages.com.sg) (the “Online Directory”), as well as in seven editions (being those from 2003/04 to 2009/10) of its three print directories, namely, the Business Listings (the “BL”), the Yellow Pages Business and the Yellow Pages Consumer (collectively the “YP”). The BL is a white pages directory in which listings of businesses are presented in alphabetical order, while the YP comprises two classified directories that contain listings of businesses arranged within various classifications.
At trial, GYP alleged that its claimed copyright in these works had been infringed by Promedia in three directories produced or maintained by the latter, namely, the Green Book (a print directory), the Green Book CD-ROM (a digital directory), and the Green Book Directory (an online directory maintained at http://www.thegreenbook.com) (collectively the “GB”). On appeal, GYP
The Judge has set out the facts and the parties’ business processes in considerable detail at [7]–[69] and [306]–[361] of the Judgment and we do not propose to repeat them. It suffices that we summarise the most essential facts.
As noted above, the works in question were essentially telephone directories of one sort or another. The production of these directories begins with the obtaining of a large mass of data. Essentially, GYP entered into an exclusive agreement with Singapore Telecommunications Limited (“Singtel”), one of the principal telephone service providers in Singapore, pursuant to which it was entitled to receive, on a daily basis, information on new subscribers or changes pertaining to existing subscribers of landlines in mainland Singapore and mobile lines in Pulau Ubin. The production processes that were performed by GYP upon receiving such information were largely computerised. Specifically, such information, which arrives as raw data, is manipulated into a format that is suitable for publication through various processes that entail the verification, classification and embellishment of that data.
After the raw data has been
Eventually, the basic subscriber data (that is, the subscriber’s name, telephone numbers and address), any embellishments the subscriber may have paid for, and the classifications under which the subscriber would fall would be extracted, sorted, typeset and printed or published online, as the case may be.
Promedia’s production processes, in comparison, were considerably less automated. Its business processes were reduced to an extensive set of standard operating procedures (“SOP”), each of which governed a specific task that employees were to perform. Promedia could not obtain subscriber information directly from Singtel. Instead it collected data from multiple third-party sources such as delivery orders, marketing collateral, field surveys, telephone calls and company websites. However, by far the most significant source of the information to be included in its directories were the telephone directories of competing publishers. One of Promedia’s SOPs required employees to take the data in the most recent edition of the BL and YP and merge it with their existing database by keying in the data through a computer program in what was essentially a form-filling exercise. Important for the purposes of this appeal is the fact that, in some years, this task involved the saving or printing of the Internet Yellow Pages entries and the photocopying or scanning of the BL into what parties refer to as Promedia’s “temporary database”. Subsequent to this exercise, the SOPs required employees to perform a few other tasks, of which three are notable. First, they used the data for “market intelligence” exercises to develop Promedia’s business. This entailed identifying the prominence of a subscriber’s listing in a competing directory (for instance, whether it had a bold entry or a boxed entry) in order to enable Promedia to assess whether it was likely to also pay Promedia a premium for a more prominent listing. Second, they had to verify and update the entries in the database by calling subscribers. Third, in that same call, the employees had to understand the subscriber’s businesses and product or service offerings in greater detail, with a view to listing them under multiple business types or offerings where applicable. This was modelled after the “Thomas register”, a directory in the USA well known for its detailed and specific classifications. After these steps, the data in the database would be manipulated to generate the various GB directories.
The result of Promedia’s efforts was a set of GB directories that was visibly different from GYP’s corresponding directories. The evidence showed that, in essence, what was copied by Promedia was the
However, not all the SOPs were executed to the letter. Promedia’s employees failed to verify some subscriber listings in the BL or YP. That is how some “seeds”, which are fictitious listings designed to detect copying, made their way into the CD-ROM and online versions of the GB. And that, in turn, was how GYP discovered that Promedia had been copying the data in its directories.
It is against this factual backdrop that GYP commenced suit against Promedia alleging copyright infringement. At the trial below, GYP claimed that copyright subsisted in three categories of works:
To assist us in our consideration of the issues, we appointed Professor...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Concept Math Education Centre Pte Ltd v Aw Bixi, Charlotte
...The originality requirement Copyright law protects authorial expressions (Global Yellow Pages Ltd v Promedia Directories Pte Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 185 (“Global Yellow Pages”) at [15]). To obtain copyright protection, the claimant must show that the authorial expression is original. The threshold......
-
IIa Technologies Pte Ltd v Element Six Technologies Ltd
...(Ptd) Ltd and another matter [2021] 2 SLR 782 at [45]; Global Yellow Pages Ltd v Promedia Directories Pte Ltd and another matter [2017] 2 SLR 185 at [22]). Although the Appellant’s Case focused on another type of insufficiency that we will turn to next, it foreshadowed the possibility of ot......
-
Oxley Consortium Pte Ltd v Geetex Enterprises Singapore (Pte) Ltd and another matter
...would have come up in the oral hearing in any event (see also Global Yellow Pages Ltd v Promedia Directories Pte Ltd and another matter [2017] 2 SLR 185 at [22]). The framework for interpreting statutorily prescribed As noted above at [39], the Judge held that principles of contractual inte......
-
JPG Enterprise Pte Ltd v Hairspec Private Limited
...Ltd [2011] 4 SLR 381 (“Asia Pacific Publishing”) at [20]-[33]; Global Yellow Pages Ltd v Promedia Directories Pte Ltd and another matter [2017] 2 SLR 185 (“Global Yellow Pages (CA)”) at [24]; Auvi Pte Ltd v Seah Siew Tee and another [1991] 2 SLR(R) 786 (“Auvi”) at [32]). With the general pr......
-
ENLARGED PANELS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SINGAPORE
...2 SLR 129. 21 Société des Produits Nestlé SA v Petra Foods Ltd [2017] 1 SLR 35; Global Yellow Pages Ltd v Promedia Directories Pte Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 185; Warner-Lambert Co LLC v Novartis (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 707. 22 TMO v TMP [2017] 1 SLR 585; UDA v UDB [2018] 1 SLR 1015. 23 The ......
-
THE BASIS FOR ORIGINALITY IN PHOTOGRAPHS
...Pages Ltd v Promedia Directories Pte Ltd [2016] 2 SLR 165; affirmed on appeal in Global Yellow Pages Ltd v Promedia Directories Pte Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 185. 51 See Daniel Gervais, “Feist Goes Global: A Comparative Analysis of the Notion of Originality in Copyright Law” (2002) 49 J Copyright So......
-
Intellectual property
...Metricon Homes Pty Ltd v Barrett Property Group Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 46 at [42]; Global Yellow Pages Ltd v Promedia Directories Pte Ltd [2017] SGCA 28 at [15], per Sundaresh Menon CJ. 11 A drawing is classed as an “artistic work” pursuant to Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK) sect......
-
FAIR USE ON INSTAGRAM
...Authors Guild v Google, Inc 804 F 3d 202 at 212 (2nd Cir, 2015), per Leval J; and Global Yellow Pages Ltd v Promedia Directories Pte Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 185 at [74], per Sundaresh Menon CJ. 39 Yashomati Ghosh, “Jurisprudential Analysis of the Rights of the Users in Copyrighted Works” in Copyri......