Tiger Pictures Entertainment v Encore Films: Copyright Infringement Dispute under Simplified Process

Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd commenced an action against Encore Films Pte Ltd in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, alleging copyright infringement of the film "Moon Man". Encore Films applied for an order that the simplified process under the Supreme Court of Judicature (Intellectual Property) Rules 2022 does not apply. The court, presided over by Justice Dedar Singh Gill, dismissed Encore Films' application, finding the case suitable for determination under the simplified process. Encore Films also raised counterclaims against Tiger Pictures for groundless threats and copyright infringement.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed; the case will proceed under the simplified process.

1.3 Case Type

Intellectual Property

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Copyright infringement case involving Tiger Pictures and Encore Films. The court determined the case was suitable for the simplified process.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Tiger Pictures Entertainment LtdClaimant, Defendant in CounterclaimCorporationApplication dismissed; case to proceed under simplified processNeutral
Encore Films Pte LtdDefendant, Claimant in CounterclaimCorporationApplication dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Dedar Singh GillJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Toh Jia YiAllen & Gledhill LLP
Wong Siew HongEldan Law LLP

4. Facts

  1. Claimant is the exclusive licensee of distribution rights to the film "Moon Man".
  2. Defendant distributed "Moon Man" in Singapore.
  3. Claimant alleges the defendant infringed its copyright in "Moon Man".
  4. Defendant claims an agreement was reached for the distribution of "Moon Man".
  5. No written agreement was executed between the parties.
  6. Claimant filed a form abandoning any claim for monetary relief in excess of $500,000.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd v Encore Films Pte Ltd, Originating Claim No 466 of 2022 (Summons No 926 of 2023), [2023] SGHC 138

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Commercial relationship between the parties began.
Kaixin entered into a license agreement with the claimant.
Mr. Young contacted Ms. Lee to discuss a distribution agreement for "Moon Man".
Claimant and HK Tiger provided defendant with a download link to the encrypted digital cinema package for "Moon Man".
Defendant sent the first draft of the distribution agreement for "Moon Man" to the claimant and HK Tiger.
Claimant sent revised draft of the distribution agreement to the defendant.
Claimant sent revised draft of the distribution agreement to the defendant.
Defendant informed the claimant and HK Tiger that "sneak" sessions for "Moon Man" had been planned.
Sneak sessions for "Moon Man" planned.
Sneak sessions for "Moon Man" planned.
Defendant informed the claimant's lawyers that they would assume there were no objections to the theatrical release of "Moon Man".
Defendant released "Moon Man" for general screening in Singapore.
Claimant commenced OC 466 claiming copyright infringement.
Claimant filed a form electing for Part 2 of the SCJ(IP)R to apply.
Court dismissed the application on 21 April 2023.
Full grounds to explain the decision were provided.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Copyright Infringement
    • Outcome: The court did not rule on the merits of the copyright infringement claim, but determined that the case was suitable for the simplified process.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2023] SGHC 138
  2. Applicability of Simplified Process
    • Outcome: The court held that the simplified process under Part 2 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Intellectual Property) Rules 2022 applies to the case.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Copyright Infringement
  • Breach of Contract
  • Groundless Threats

10. Practice Areas

  • Intellectual Property Litigation
  • Copyright Infringement

11. Industries

  • Entertainment
  • Film Distribution

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
77M Limited v Ordnance Survey Limited and othersIntellectual Property Enterprise CourtYes[2017] EWHC 1501 (IPEC)England and WalesCited for factors considered in deciding if a case should be transferred to or from the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court.
Alliance Entertainment Singapore Pte Ltd v Sim Kay Teck and anotherHigh CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 869SingaporeCited regarding the standing of exclusive licensees to bring an action against infringers under the Copyright Act.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Supreme Court of Judicature (Intellectual Property) Rules 2022
Part 2 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Intellectual Property) Rules 2022
r 5(1) of the SCJ(IP)R
r 4(1) of the SCJ(IP)R
r 6(2) of the SCJ(IP)R
r 9(2) of the SCJ(IP)R

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Copyright Act 2021Singapore
s 499 of the Copyright Act 2021Singapore
s 103 of the Copyright Act 2021Singapore
s 153(1)(b) of the Copyright Act 2021Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Simplified Process
  • Copyright Infringement
  • Distribution Agreement
  • Exclusive Licensee
  • DKDM
  • Moon Man
  • Hi! Mom

15.2 Keywords

  • Copyright Infringement
  • Simplified Process
  • Intellectual Property
  • Singapore
  • Moon Man
  • Film Distribution

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Copyrights95
Intellectual Property Law90
Civil Procedure50
Contract Law40

16. Subjects

  • Intellectual Property Dispute Resolution
  • Copyright
  • Civil Procedure