Pacific Internet Ltd v Catcha.com Pte Ltd: Trespass, Copyright Infringement & Deep Linking

Pacific Internet Ltd sued Catcha.com Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore on 10 May 2000, asserting claims of copyright infringement, passing off, breach of statutory duty, and trespass based on Catcha.com's deep linking to Pacific Internet's websites. Catcha.com applied to strike out the trespass claim, which was dismissed by the assistant registrar. Lai Kew Chai J dismissed Catcha.com's appeal, finding that the trespass claim was not manifestly unsustainable and required a full trial.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Pacific Internet sued Catcha.com for copyright infringement, passing off, breach of statutory duty, and trespass due to deep linking. The court dismissed the defendant's appeal to strike out the trespass claim.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Pacific Internet LtdPlaintiff, RespondentCorporationAppeal dismissedWon
Catcha.com Pte LtdDefendant, AppellantCorporationAppeal dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Kew ChaiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Thio Shen YiThio Su Mien & Partners
Yvonne LeeThio Su Mien & Partners
Lawrence TanWong Partnership
Andre F ManiamWong Partnership

4. Facts

  1. Pacific Internet claimed ownership of proprietary frames, HTMLs, data arrangements, content, and artistic work on their 'Movies Online' and 'Tatler' websites.
  2. Catcha.com allegedly accessed Pacific Internet's websites without authorization to copy HTMLs and reproduce HREFs for commercial benefit.
  3. Catcha.com's actions allegedly caused confusion, enhanced the value of their own websites, and diluted Pacific Internet's revenue.
  4. Pacific Internet alleged that Catcha.com captured web surfers, bypassing Pacific Internet's homepages and creating 'stickiness' within Catcha.com's websites.
  5. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants had no right to access the plaintiffs` web sites or whether the defendants have such a right, as they contend.
  6. The acts of trespasses were alleged to have taken place `prior to` the defendants` alleged acts of copyright infringements pleaded earlier in the statement of claim.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Pacific Internet Ltd v Catcha.com Pte Ltd, Suit 1730/19993, [2000] SGHC 83

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Defendants wrongfully accessed plaintiffs' websites without authorization.
Appeal heard.
Defendants' solicitors drew attention to Ticketmaster Corp v Tickets.Com Inc.
Correspondence including written submissions ended.
Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Trespass to Internet Property
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiffs' claim for trespass was arguable and should not be struck out.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Unauthorised access to websites
      • Deep linking
      • Commercial exploitation of website content
  2. Striking Out Pleadings
    • Outcome: The court held that the pleadings should not be struck out because the claim was not manifestly unsustainable.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reasonable cause of action
      • Frivolous or vexatious claims
      • Abuse of process

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration
  2. Injunction
  3. Damages
  4. Interest
  5. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Copyright Infringement
  • Passing Off
  • Breach of Statutory Duty
  • Trespass

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Intellectual Property Litigation
  • Technology Law

11. Industries

  • Internet
  • Media
  • Technology

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Byrne v Kinematograph Renters SocietyNot AvailableYes[1958] 2 All ER 579England and WalesCited to argue that entering a property with an improper motive does not constitute trespass if access is permitted.
Sports and General Press Agency v `Our Dogs` Publishing CoNot AvailableYes[1917] 2 KB 125England and WalesCited to argue that an exclusive right to take photographs is not a form of property known to the law.
Bradford v PicklesNot AvailableYes[1895] AC 587England and WalesCited to argue that a lawful act does not become illegal due to an improper motive.
Hunt v Carey Canada IncSupreme Court of CanadaYesHunt v Carey Canada Inc (Sup Ct, Can, 1990, Lexis 155)CanadaCited for the principle that a statement of claim should only be struck out if it is plain and obvious that it discloses no reasonable cause of action.
Re Belanger & Associates v Stadium Corp of Ontario LtdCourt of Appeal of OntarioYesRe Belanger & Associates v Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd (CA, Ont, 1991, Lexis 301)CanadaCited for the principle that matters of law which have not been settled fully in our jurisprudence should not be disposed of at this stage of the proceedings.
Rhone-Poulenc Canada Inc v Reichhold LtdNot AvailableYesRhone-Poulenc Canada Inc v Reichhold Ltd [1998] ACWSJ 138258CanadaCited for the principle that novelty of the claim, by itself, is not sufficient to justify granting the motion to strike out.
Ticketmaster Corp v Tickets.Com IncUS Federal CourtYesTicketmaster Corp v Tickets.Com IncUnited StatesCited by the defendants; distinguished by the court due to the preemption doctrine under the US Copyright Act.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 18 r 19 Rules of Court 1997

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Copyright Act (Cap 63)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Deep linking
  • HTML
  • HREF
  • Websites
  • Trespass
  • Copyright infringement
  • Eyeballs
  • Hits
  • Stickiness
  • Commercial exploitation

15.2 Keywords

  • trespass
  • copyright
  • deep linking
  • internet
  • website
  • singapore
  • high court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Practice75
Copyrights70
Internet Law65
Torts60
Contract Law50
Deep Linking40

16. Subjects

  • Internet Law
  • Intellectual Property Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Tort Law