Alliance Entertainment v Sim Kay Teck: Copyright Infringement & Licensee Rights
In Alliance Entertainment Singapore Pte Ltd v Sim Kay Teck and Dallas Entertainment Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed whether Alliance Entertainment, a non-exclusive licensee of copyright, could sue for copyright infringement. The court struck out the action, holding that a non-exclusive licensee lacks the title to sue for infringement under the Copyright Act. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application to amend the statement of claim to include the copyright owners as co-plaintiffs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Action struck out on the grounds that the plaintiff cannot maintain this action.
1.3 Case Type
Intellectual Property
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court judgment on copyright infringement, addressing whether a non-exclusive licensee can sue for infringement. Action struck out.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alliance Entertainment Singapore Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | |
| Sim Kay Teck | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | |
| Dallas Entertainment Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Alliance Entertainment Singapore Pte Ltd (AESPL) claimed to be the exclusive licensee of copyright in Meteor Garden 2 (MG2) and The Lord of the Rings films.
- AESPL commenced an action against Sim Kay Teck and Dallas Entertainment Pte Ltd for alleged copyright infringement.
- AESPL was not the copyright owner or an assignee of the copyright.
- AESPL's claim was based on a chain of contractual arrangements.
- The defendants applied to strike out the proceedings, arguing that AESPL did not have title to maintain the action.
- AESPL applied to amend its writ to include the copyright owners as plaintiffs.
5. Formal Citations
- Alliance Entertainment Singapore Pte Ltd v Sim Kay Teck and Another, Suit 797/2005, SUM 5478/2006, 5489/2006, 5531/2006, 5587/2006, 5757/2006, [2007] SGHC 43
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit No 88 of 2003 filed by AESPL against Spin for copyright infringement of MG2. | |
| Suit No 978 of 2004 filed by AESPL against Mr Sim and Dallas for copyright infringement of MG2. | |
| Defendants applied to strike out the proceedings on the grounds of estoppel and res judicata. | |
| Trial commenced. | |
| Application to amend was heard. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Copyright Infringement
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff, as a non-exclusive licensee, did not have the title to sue for copyright infringement.
- Category: Substantive
- Title to Sue
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff did not have title to sue.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for copyright infringement
9. Cause of Actions
- Copyright Infringement
10. Practice Areas
- Intellectual Property Litigation
11. Industries
- Entertainment
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alliance Entertainment Singapore Pte Ltd v Sim Kay Teck and Another | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR 712 | Singapore | Cited to clarify that the court had not previously determined that AESPL was not an exclusive licensee. |
| Henderson v Henderson | N/A | Yes | [1843-1860] All ER Rep 378 | N/A | Cited regarding the definition of issue estoppel. |
| Young v Odeon Music House Pty Ltd | N/A | Yes | (1978) RPC 621 | N/A | Cited to support the principle that an exclusive licensee takes rights to the exclusion of all others, including the copyright owner. |
| Kinekor Films (Pty) Ltd v Movie Time | N/A | Yes | [1976] 1 SA 649 | N/A | Cited to support the principle that a license granted by a prior licensee is not an exclusive license. |
| Heap v Hartley | English Court of Appeal | Yes | (1889) LR 42 Ch D 461 | England and Wales | Cited to distinguish between a license and an assignment, stating that a license does not convey an interest in property enforceable against third parties. |
| London Printing and Publishing Alliance, Limited v Cox | N/A | Yes | [1891] 3 Ch 291 | N/A | Cited to apply the principles of Heap v Hartley to copyright law. |
| Neilson v Horniman | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1909-1910] 26 TLR 188 (CA) | England and Wales | Cited to follow the principles established in Heap v Hartley. |
| Bodley Head Ltd v Flegon | N/A | Yes | [1972] RPC 587 | N/A | Cited to illustrate that action could be initiated and maintained by the exclusive licensee but could even proceed without the joinder of the copyright owners in the appropriate circumstances with the leave of court. |
| Sega Enterprises Ltd v Galaxy Electronics Pty Ltd | N/A | Yes | (1997) 39 IPR 577 | N/A | Cited regarding whether a non-exclusive licensee could remain a party. |
| Television Broadcasts Limited and Ors v Mandarin Video Holdings Sdn Bhd | N/A | Yes | [1984] FSR 111 | N/A | Cited regarding whether a non-exclusive licensee could remain a party. |
| Television Broadcasts & Ors v Seremban Video Centre Sdn Bhd | N/A | Yes | [1985] 1 MLJ 171 | N/A | Cited regarding whether a non-exclusive licensee could remain a party. |
| Tan Yow Kon v Tan Swat Ping | N/A | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR 881 | N/A | Cited regarding the rules are there to save rather than to destroy, to enable rather than to disable and to ensure that the right parties are before the court so as to minimise the delay, inconvenience and expense of multiple actions. |
| The Charlotte | N/A | Yes | [1908] P 206 | N/A | Cited regarding the owner in equity having to add the legal owner in order to ‘perfect’ the title to sue or some variant of this. |
| Performing Right Society v London Theatre of Varieties | N/A | Yes | [1924] AC 1 | N/A | Cited regarding the owner in equity having to add the legal owner in order to ‘perfect’ the title to sue or some variant of this. |
| Showell v Winkup | N/A | Yes | (1889) 60 LT 389 | N/A | Cited regarding the owner in equity having to add the legal owner in order to ‘perfect’ the title to sue or some variant of this. |
| Ayscough v Bullar | N/A | Yes | (1889) 41 Ch D 341 | N/A | Cited regarding where there is some doubt about or defect in the plaintiff’s title to sue, another plaintiff may be added in order to remedy this. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 15 r 6(2)(b)(ii) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Sections 123, 124 Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Copyright
- Exclusive Licensee
- Non-Exclusive Licensee
- Infringement
- Title to Sue
- Copyright Act
- Rules of Court
15.2 Keywords
- Copyright infringement
- exclusive licensee
- non-exclusive licensee
- title to sue
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Copyrights | 90 |
| Civil Practice | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Copyright
- Intellectual Property
- Civil Procedure