Flamelite v Lam Heng Chung: Copyright Infringement in Fire-Rated Glass Door Designs

In Flamelite (S) Pte Ltd and Others v Lam Heng Chung and Others, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed the appeal by Flamelite against Lam Heng Chung, concerning copyright infringement in the designs of fire-rated glass doors and screens. The court found that there was no substantial similarity between the plaintiffs' and defendants' designs, and the general layout was dictated by functional requirements. The court also clarified the application of the 'non-expert' defence under the Copyright Act.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal dismissed Flamelite's copyright claim against Lam Heng Chung, finding no substantial similarity in fire-rated glass door designs.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Flamelite (S) Pte LtdAppellant, PlaintiffCorporationAppeal dismissedLost
FlametechAppellant, PlaintiffCorporationAppeal dismissedLost
GlaverbelAppellant, PlaintiffCorporationAppeal dismissedLost
Lam Heng ChungRespondent, DefendantIndividualJudgment for DefendantWon
Swissflame Pte LtdRespondent, DefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWon
Wu Kam FaiRespondent, DefendantIndividualJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeYes
L P TheanJudge of AppealNo
Chao Hick TinJudge of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tan Teck San KelvinDrew & Napier LLC
Seah Sheng Lim StevenDrew & Napier LLC
Wong Siew HongInfinitus Law Corp
Chia Soo MichaelInfinitus Law Corp

4. Facts

  1. Flamelite and Flametech claimed copyright to preliminary sketches for fire-rated glass doors and screens.
  2. Glaverbel claimed copyright to artistic works in preliminary sketches for a frame for fire-rated glass screens.
  3. Lam was a sub-contractor for Flametech and Flamelite and had access to their shop drawings.
  4. Wu was employed by Flamelite and had access to the plaintiffs' shop drawings.
  5. Lam and his wife incorporated Swissflame, which also manufactured fire-rated glass doors and screens.
  6. The plaintiffs alleged that Swissflame's framing system was substantially similar to their own.
  7. The defendants argued that their framing system was not an exact reproduction and used common methods.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Flamelite (S) Pte Ltd and Others v Lam Heng Chung and Others, CA 600054/2001, [2001] SGCA 75

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Glaverbel works sketches created by Robert Vanderstukken.
Copyright (International Protection) Regulations, 1990
Flamelite works sketches created by Loke Gim Tay.
Lam engaged by Flametech as a sub-contractor.
Lam engaged by Flamelite as a sub-contractor.
Wu Kam Fai employed by Flamelite.
Lam's sub-contract with Flametech ends.
Loke acquired Flametech.
Flamelite terminated the engagement of Lam; Wu's employment with Flamelite ends.
Lam and Sim Bee Hoon incorporated Swissflame Pte Ltd.
Wu employed by Swissflame as its Technical Services Manager.
Copyright (International Protection) Regulations, 1996
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Copyright Infringement
    • Outcome: The court held that there was no substantial reproduction of the plaintiffs' works by the defendants, and thus no copyright infringement.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Substantial reproduction
      • Access to copyrighted work
      • Non-expert defence
  2. Locus Standi
    • Outcome: The court held that granting a license to a third party does not abrogate the rights of the copyright owner to sue for infringement.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages for copyright infringement

9. Cause of Actions

  • Copyright Infringement

10. Practice Areas

  • Intellectual Property Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction
  • Manufacturing

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
British Northrop Ltd v Texteam Blackburn LtdN/AYes[1974] RPC 57N/ACited for the principle that mere simplicity does not preclude copyright protection.
University of London Press Ltd v Barclays Finance LtdN/AYes[1994] FSR 275N/ACited for the principle that originality in copyright law relates to the form in which the work is expressed.
A Fulton Co Ltd v Grant Barnett & Co LtdN/AYes[2001] RPC 257N/ACited for the principle that close similarity and access raise an inference of copying.
Ibcos Computers Ltd v Barclay Finance LtdN/AYes[1994] FSR 275N/ACited for the principle that sufficient similarities shift the onus to the defendant to prove non-copying.
Catnic Components Ltd & Anor v Hill & Smith LtdN/AYes[1979] FSR 609N/ACited for the principle that in determining infringement, the quality rather than the quantity of the part reproduced is considered.
Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) LtdN/AYes[1964] 1 WLR 273N/ACited for the principle that substantial reproduction depends on the significance of what is taken, not just the physical amount.
Warwick Film Productions Ltd v EisingerN/AYes[1969] 1 Ch 508N/ACited for the principle that non-original material attracts copyright only by reason of its collocation.
A-One Accessory Imorts Pty Ltd v Off Road Imports Pty LtdAustralian Federal CourtYes(1996) 34 IPR 306AustraliaCited for the principle that non-original material in a composite work attracts copyright protection only because of its collocation with the new material.
Baazley Homes Ltd v ArrowsmithN/AYes[1978] 1 NZLR 394New ZealandCited for the principle that the existence of dissimilarities does not necessarily negate infringement.
Hart v Edward Hot Water SystemsAustralian High CourtYes[1985] 61 ALR 251AustraliaCited for the principle that minor differences do not negate similarity in copyright infringement.
Dixon Investments Pty Ltd v Hall & AnorFederal Court of AustraliaYes(1990) 18 IPR 481AustraliaCited for the principle that the simpler the copyright drawing, the more closely the infringer must adhere to it for liability to exist.
Kenrick and Co v Lawrence and CoN/AYes(1890) 25 QBD 99N/ACited for the principle that slight changes can prevent copyright infringement.
Politechnikas Ipari Szovelkezer v Dallas Print Transfers LtdN/AYes[1982] FSR 529N/ACited for the principle that for rudimentary drawings, there must be almost an exact reproduction for infringement.
Solar Thompson Engineering Co Ltd & Anor v BartonN/AYes[1977] RPC 537N/ACited for the approach to be taken in determining whether the defence under s 69 is available.
LB (Plastics) Ltd v Swish Products LtdN/AYes[1979] FSR 145N/ACited for the principle that the judge must be entitled to compare the object with the drawings and must also be credited with some ability to interpret design drawings.
Ownit Homes Pty Ltd v D&F Mancuso Investments Pty LtdN/AYes[1988] AIPC 90-488N/ACited for the principle that the simpler and more commonplace the copyright drawing, the more closely must the alleged infringer adhere to it, in order for liability to exist.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Copyright Act (Cap 63, 1988 Ed)Singapore
Copyright ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Fire-rated glass doors
  • Copyright infringement
  • Substantial similarity
  • Non-expert defence
  • Shop drawings
  • Framing system
  • Artistic works
  • Preliminary sketches

15.2 Keywords

  • copyright
  • infringement
  • fire-rated glass doors
  • Flamelite
  • Lam Heng Chung
  • Swissflame
  • design
  • intellectual property

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Copyrights90
Civil Practice20

16. Subjects

  • Copyright
  • Intellectual Property
  • Construction Law