Tiger Pictures v Encore Films: Copyright Infringement & Contract Formation Dispute over 'Moon Man' Film

Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd sued Encore Films Pte Ltd in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Originating Claim No 466 of 2022, for copyright infringement of the film 'Moon Man'. Tiger Pictures claimed that Encore Films distributed and exhibited the film without a valid distribution agreement. Encore Films counterclaimed, asserting that a binding agreement was formed through WeChat and email negotiations. The court, presided over by Dedar Singh Gill J, found that no agreement was reached between the parties and ruled in favor of Tiger Pictures, concluding that Encore Films had infringed on Tiger Pictures' copyright.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for the claimant.

1.3 Case Type

Intellectual Property

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Tiger Pictures sues Encore Films for copyright infringement of 'Moon Man'. Court finds no distribution agreement existed, thus Encore infringed copyright.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Tiger Pictures Entertainment LtdClaimant, Defendant in CounterclaimCorporationJudgment for the claimantWon
Encore Films Pte LtdDefendant, Claimant in CounterclaimCorporationClaim dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Dedar Singh GillJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Toh Jia YiAllen & Gledhill LLP
Justin TayAllen & Gledhill LLP
Tan Tee JimLee & Lee
Lee JuntingLee & Lee
BasilLee & Lee
Yang Zhuo YanLee & Lee

4. Facts

  1. Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd is in the business of distributing and selling films.
  2. Encore Films Pte Ltd distributes films in Singapore and Southeast Asia.
  3. The parties had a commercial relationship since 2021 regarding the film 'Hi! Mom'.
  4. Tiger Pictures was the exclusive licensee of distribution rights to 'Hi! Mom'.
  5. The owner of the copyright in 'Moon Man' is Kaixin Mahua.
  6. Tiger Pictures and Kaixin Mahua entered into an exclusive license agreement on 19 August 2022.
  7. The Exclusive Licence Agreement was effective from 25 August 2022 to 24 August 2033.
  8. Tiger Pictures granted an exclusive sub-licence to HK Tiger for the relevant rights in respect of 'Moon Man'.
  9. The defendant proceeded with the theatrical release of 'Moon Man' between 15 September 2022 and 26 October 2022.
  10. The claimant commenced OC 466, claiming that the defendant had infringed its copyright in 'Moon Man'.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd v Encore Films Pte Ltd, Originating Claim No 466 of 2022, [2024] SGHC 39

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Parties entered into a commercial relationship.
Mr. Young contacted Ms. Lee to negotiate a distribution agreement for 'Moon Man'.
Kaixin Mahua and the claimant entered into an Exclusive Licence Agreement.
Mr. Young emailed Ms. Lee with a proposal for collaboration.
Mr. Young and Ms. Lee continued negotiations through WeChat messages.
Mr. Young and Ms. Lee had a WeChat call to discuss the P&A plan.
Claimant and HK Tiger provided defendant with a download link to the encrypted file containing the digital cinema package for 'Moon Man'.
Claimant reminded defendant to send the draft distribution agreement.
Defendant sent a first draft of the distribution agreement for 'Moon Man' to the claimant and HK Tiger.
Claimant and HK Tiger sent a revised draft of the distribution agreement to the defendant.
Defendant sent a further revised draft of the distribution agreement.
Defendant informed claimant and HK Tiger that 'sneak' sessions for 'Moon Man' were planned from 9 to 11 September 2022.
Parties continued to exchange further drafts of the distribution agreement.
Parties continued to exchange further drafts of the distribution agreement.
Parties continued to exchange further drafts of the distribution agreement.
Defendant informed the claimant's lawyers that if the claimant did not respond by 5.00pm that day, the defendant would assume that the claimant had no objections to the theatrical release of 'Moon Man' on 15 September 2022.
Defendant released 'Moon Man' for general screening in Singapore.
Defendant proceeded with the theatrical release of 'Moon Man'.
Claimant's lawyers sent an email to the defendant, repeating that there was no agreement for the theatrical release of 'Moon Man' except for the Sneak Sessions.
Defendant proceeded with the theatrical release of 'Moon Man'.
Claimant commenced OC 466, claiming that the defendant had infringed its copyright in 'Moon Man'.
Defendant filed Summons No 926 of 2023 to challenge the applicability of the simplified process to OC 466.
Defendant filed its Single Application Pending Trial, Summons No 2172 of 2023.
Trial began.
Trial continued.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Copyright Infringement
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant infringed the claimant's copyright.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Contract Formation
    • Outcome: The court found that no valid and binding distribution agreement was formed between the parties.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Intention to create legal relations
      • Certainty of terms
  3. Burden of Proof
    • Outcome: The court held that the claimant bears the legal burden of proving that the defendant does not have the licence of the copyright owner under s 146(1)(b) of the Copyright Act 2021.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the copyright in “Moon Man”
  2. Order for the delivery up and forfeiture or destruction of the infringing copies of “Moon Man”
  3. Inquiry as to the damages, or at the claimant’s election, an account of profits in respect of the copyright infringement in “Moon Man”

9. Cause of Actions

  • Copyright Infringement

10. Practice Areas

  • Copyright Infringement
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Intellectual Property Litigation

11. Industries

  • Entertainment
  • Film Distribution

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd v Encore Films Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 138SingaporeCited for summarily dealing with the defendant's counterclaims.
Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd v Encore Films Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 255SingaporeCited for dismissing the defendant's striking out application as the claimant had standing to maintain OC 466.
Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA (trading as Rabobank International), Singapore Branch v Motorola Electronics Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2011] 2 SLR 63SingaporeCited for the principle that he who asserts must prove.
Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 332SingaporeCited for the requirement that parties must have had an intention to create legal relations for contractual formation.
Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd v Jurong Engineering Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 204SingaporeCited for the court's fundamental task to ascertain the true bargain between the parties.
China Coal Solution (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Avra Commodities Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2020] 2 SLR 984SingaporeCited for the principle that parties may intend to be contractually bound only upon the execution of a formal written agreement.
How Weng Fan and others v Sengkang Town Council and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2023] 2 SLR 235SingaporeCited for the principles regarding pleadings.
OMG Holdings Pte Ltd v Pos Ad Sdn BhdHigh CourtYes[2012] 4 SLR 231SingaporeCited for the principle that evidence given at trial can overcome defects in the pleadings.
R1 International Pte Ltd v Lonstroff AGHigh CourtYes[2015] 1 SLR 521SingaporeCited for the principle that parties may agree on essential terms and act on them even while discussing other detailed terms.
Rudhra Minerals Pte Ltd v MRI Trading Pte Ltd (formerly known as CWT Integrated Services Pte Ltd)High CourtYes[2013] 4 SLR 1023SingaporeCited for the principle that it is for the parties to decide whether and when they wish to be bound and by what terms.
The “Luna” and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 1054SingaporeCited for the principle that the identity of the parties to a contract is fundamental.
Homburg Houtimport BV and others v Agrosin Pte Ltd and another (The Starsin)House of LordsYes[2004] 1 AC 715United KingdomCited for the principle that the identity of the parties to a contract is fundamental.
Simpson Marine (SEA) Pte Ltd v Jiacipto JiaravanonCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 696SingaporeCited for the proposition that evidence of subsequent conduct is admissible in determining contractual formation.
Spamhaus Technology Ltd v Reputation Administration Service Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 294SingaporeCited for the issue of whether subsequent conduct is admissible in determining the formation of a contract remains unsettled in our courts.
Ramo Industries Pte Ltd v DLE Solutions Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2020] SGHC 4SingaporeCited for the approach that the court ought not to place undue weight on the parties’ subsequent conduct when determining the existence of a contract between the parties.
ARS v ART and anotherHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 78SingaporeCited for the approach that the court ought not to place undue weight on the parties’ subsequent conduct when determining the existence of a contract between the parties.
Royal Mail Group plc (formerly known as Consignia plc) v i-CD Publishing (UK) LtdEngland and Wales High Court (Chancery Division)Yes[2003] All ER (D) 113 (Aug)United KingdomCited for the principle that absence of consent is an ingredient of liability for infringement.
Barrett v Universal Island Records and othersEngland and Wales High Court (Chancery Division)Yes[2006] All ER (D) 214 (May)United KingdomCited for the principle that absence of the performer’s consent is part of the definition of infringement.
Avel Pty Ltd v Multicoin Amusements Pty Ltd and anotherFederal Court of AustraliaYes(1990) 18 IPR 443AustraliaCited for the principle that the lack of a licence is a constituent element of infringement.
ACOHS Pty Ltd v RA Bashford Consulting Pty Ltd and othersFederal Court of AustraliaYes(1997) 37 IPR 542AustraliaCited for the proposition that the burden of proving the absence of a licence should be placed on the claimant.
Grossner Jens v Raffles Holdings LtdHigh CourtYes[2004] 1 SLR(R) 202SingaporeCited for the certainty and completeness requirements for a valid contract to exist.
T2 Networks Pte Ltd v Nasioncom Sdn BhdHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 1SingaporeCited for the principle that if the material terms of an agreement have been arrived at, the agreement can still come into existence and be enforceable even though there are some minor terms to be worked out.
OCBC Capital Investment Asia Ltd v Wong Hua ChoonHigh CourtYes[2012] 4 SLR 1206SingaporeCited for the key question of whether the parties have objectively demonstrated that they intend to be bound despite the unsettled terms.
The Wave Studio Pte Ltd and others v General Hotel Management (Singapore) Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 142SingaporeCited for the bifurcation of liability and damages in the present case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Supreme Court of Judicature (Intellectual Property) Rules 2022
Supreme Court of Judicature (Intellectual Property) Rules 2022 r 5(1)
Supreme Court of Judicature (Intellectual Property) Rules 2022 r 9(2)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Copyright Act 2021Singapore
Copyright Act 2021 s 146(1)Singapore
Copyright Act 2021 s 124Singapore
Copyright Act 2021 s 159(3)Singapore
Copyright Act 2021 s 499Singapore
Copyright Act 2021 s 103Singapore
Evidence Act 1893Singapore
Evidence Act 1893 ss 103Singapore
Evidence Act 1893 ss 105Singapore
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c 48)United Kingdom
Australian Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)Australia

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Exclusive Licence Agreement
  • Digital cinema package
  • Distribution key delivery message
  • WeChat and E-mail Negotiations
  • Sneak Sessions
  • Promotions and advertising plan
  • Theatrical rights
  • Licence period

15.2 Keywords

  • Copyright infringement
  • Contract formation
  • Film distribution
  • Moon Man
  • Tiger Pictures
  • Encore Films

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Copyrights90
Contract Law80
Breach of Contract75
Commercial Disputes30
Litigation25
Company Law20
Civil Procedure15

16. Subjects

  • Copyright
  • Contract Law
  • Intellectual Property