PERINGKAT AKHIR
Harta Intelek/ Kontrak: Mahkamah Rayuan
USA 1 Co., USA3 Co. & MY2 Sdn. Bhd. v Car Secure Sdn. Bhd.
Kedua-dua syarikat USA1 Co dan USA3 Co yang diperbadankan di Amerika Syarikat adalah pemilik hak harta intelek alat ‘Stopthief’. Plaintif ketiga MY2 Sdn Bhd diperbadankan di Malaysia untuk memasarkan alat ‘Stoptheif’ di Malaysia.
Kedua-dua plaintif (USA1 Co dan USA3) menuntut bahawa alat Car Secure Sdn Bhd (‘Stopjack’) adalah terbitan dari alat ‘Stoptheif’ mereka.
Pada 1 April 1995 syarikat USA3 Co telah memasuki satu perjanjian lesen (perjanjian lesen) dengan Syarikat Bermuda yang mana Encik Tan, adalah Pengarah. Kemudian Encik Tan telah meletakkan jawatan di Syarikat Bermuda dan menjadi pengarah di Car Secure Sdn Bhd.
Berikutan dari itu, informasi rahsia berkaitan dengan alat ‘Stoptheif’ telah diberikan kepada Encik Bala, Pengarah Urusan (CEO) Car Secure Sdn Bhd dan satu perjanjian Rahsia (perjanjian rahsia) telah ditandatangani di antara Encik Tan dan Car Secure Sdn Bhd. Setelah itu, Encik Tan meletak jawatan dari Car Secure Sdn Bhd.
Pada 27 November 1995, MY2 Sdn Bhd melancarkan alat ‘Stoptheif’ di seluruh Malaysia melalui publisiti dan promosi yang hebat. Mereka talah menyerahkan permohonan mereka untuk perlindungan patent kepada MyIPO pada 1 November 1995.
Pada 30 November 1995, ‘Stopjack’ telah dilancarkan oleh Car Secure Sdn Bhd. di Malaysia.
MY2 Sdn Bhd telah menerima surat dari Car Secure Sdn Bhd. yang mana mereka menyatakan bahawa mereka telah membuat alat ‘Stopjack’ lebih dahulu dan meminta penggunaan cap dagangan ‘Stoptheif’ dihentikan.
Plaintif-plaintif (USA 1 Co., USA3 Co. & MY2 Sdn. Bhd.) telah menyaman Car Secure Sdn Bhd kerana melanggar hak cipta dan memohon remedi-remedi berikut:-
(i) gantirugi bagi perlanggaran hak cipta dan ‘passing off’
(ii) gantirugi bagi mendapatkan informasi daripada Plaintif-plaintif secara penipuan dan kemudiannya menggunakan informasi tersebut untuk membina produk yang serupa atau sama dengan produk plaintif-plaintif dan juga menggunakan cap dagangan yang sama dengan cap dagangan plaintif; dan
(iii) gantirugi bagi konversyen (conversion)
Di Mahkamah Tinggi, keputusan yang diberikan menyebelahi pihak defenden berdasarkan kepada alasan-alasan berikut:
(i) bahawa pihak plaintif tiada apa-apa untuk dilindungi kerana mereka tidak mempunyai patent untuk alat ‘Stoptheif’ di Malaysia dan dengan itu tiada apa untuk dilindungi melalui tuntutan ‘passing off’.
(ii) Bahawa informasi yang didapati sebelum perlaksanaan perjanjian rahsia tidak diberikan di atas dasar obligasi rahsia.
(iii) Bahawa plaintif kedua hanyalah pengedar dan tidak mempunyai hak kepunyaan untuk membuat tuntutan untuk ‘passing off’.
(iv) Alasan tuntutan konversyen bagi hak-hak harta intelek telah disalahertikan yang mana ianya tidak berkaitan dengan hal ‘ethereal’ atau ‘ephemeral’ seperti informasi; dan
(v) Bukti kerosakan sebenar adalah elemen yang perlu semasa perbicaraan dan kemungkinan berlaku kerosakan tersebut mencukupi hanya di dalam kes permohonan interim untuk injuksi quia timet
Plaintif kini merayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi.
Finals
Intellectual Property / Contract : In the Court of Appeal
USA 1 Co., USA3 Co. & MY2 Sdn. Bhd. v Car Secure Sdn. Bhd.
USA1 Company and USA3 company both companies incorporated in USA were the owner of the intellectual property rights in the Stopthief Device. The second plaintiff MY2 Sdn Bhd was incorporated in Malaysia to market the Stopthief device in Malaysia.
Both the plaintiffs (USA1 and USA3 company) claimed that Car-Secure Sdn Bhd’s device ('Stopjack') was derived from their Stopthief device.
USA3 company had on 1st April 1995 entered into a licence agreement ('licence agreement') with Bermuda Company of which the Mr. Tan, was a director. Subsequently Mr Tan resigned from Bermuda company and became a director of Car-Secure Shd Bhd.
Pursuant to this, confidential information pertaining to the Stopthief device was provided to one Mr Bala, the CEO of Car Secure Sdn. Bhd. & a Confidentiality agreement ('confidentiality agreement') was signed between Mr. Tan and Car Secure Sdn. Bhd. Thereafter, Mr Tan resigned from Car- Secure Sdn Bhd.
On 27 November 1995, MY2 Sdn. Bhd. launched the 'Stopthief' device throughout Malaysia amidst heavy publicity and promotions. They had submitted their application for patent protection to MyIPO on 1 Nov. 1995.
On 30th November 1995, 'Stopjack' was launched by Car Secure Sdn. Bhd. in Malaysia.
Subsequently, MY2 Sdn Bhd received a letter from Car Secure Sdn Bhd who claimed to have developed the ‘Stopjack’ device earlier and demanded the cessation of the use of the trade mark 'Stopthief'.
The plaintiffs (USA1 and USA3 and MY2 Sdn Bhd ) immediately sued Car Secure Sdn. Bhd. for breach of copyright claiming the following remedies :-
(i) damages for breach of copyright and ‘passing off ’
(iii) damages for fraudulently obtaining information from the Plaintiffs and thereafter utilising the information to manufacture a product identical or similar to the plaintiffs' product and by using a trade mark similar to the plaintiffs' trade mark; and
(iv) damages in conversion.
In the High Court judgment was given in favour of the Defendant on the following grounds:-
(i) that the plaintiffs had nothing to protect because they did not have any patent for the Stopthief device in Malaysia and hence they had nothing to protect by way of an action based on ‘passing – off ‘ ;
(ii) the information imparted prior to the execution of the confidentiality agreement was not imparted under any obligation of confidence;
(iii)the second plaintiff is a mere distributor and cannot acquire any proprietary rights sufficient to sustain an action in passing off;
(iv) the cause of action of conversion in respect of intellectual property rights is misconceived as it does not relate to ethereal or ephemeral matter such as information; and
(v) proof of actual damage is a necessary element at trial and only in the case of an interim application for a quia timet injunction would the likelihood of damage suffice.
The Plaintiffs now appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
Harta Intelek/ Kontrak: Mahkamah Rayuan
USA 1 Co., USA3 Co. & MY2 Sdn. Bhd. v Car Secure Sdn. Bhd.
Kedua-dua syarikat USA1 Co dan USA3 Co yang diperbadankan di Amerika Syarikat adalah pemilik hak harta intelek alat ‘Stopthief’. Plaintif ketiga MY2 Sdn Bhd diperbadankan di Malaysia untuk memasarkan alat ‘Stoptheif’ di Malaysia.
Kedua-dua plaintif (USA1 Co dan USA3) menuntut bahawa alat Car Secure Sdn Bhd (‘Stopjack’) adalah terbitan dari alat ‘Stoptheif’ mereka.
Pada 1 April 1995 syarikat USA3 Co telah memasuki satu perjanjian lesen (perjanjian lesen) dengan Syarikat Bermuda yang mana Encik Tan, adalah Pengarah. Kemudian Encik Tan telah meletakkan jawatan di Syarikat Bermuda dan menjadi pengarah di Car Secure Sdn Bhd.
Berikutan dari itu, informasi rahsia berkaitan dengan alat ‘Stoptheif’ telah diberikan kepada Encik Bala, Pengarah Urusan (CEO) Car Secure Sdn Bhd dan satu perjanjian Rahsia (perjanjian rahsia) telah ditandatangani di antara Encik Tan dan Car Secure Sdn Bhd. Setelah itu, Encik Tan meletak jawatan dari Car Secure Sdn Bhd.
Pada 27 November 1995, MY2 Sdn Bhd melancarkan alat ‘Stoptheif’ di seluruh Malaysia melalui publisiti dan promosi yang hebat. Mereka talah menyerahkan permohonan mereka untuk perlindungan patent kepada MyIPO pada 1 November 1995.
Pada 30 November 1995, ‘Stopjack’ telah dilancarkan oleh Car Secure Sdn Bhd. di Malaysia.
MY2 Sdn Bhd telah menerima surat dari Car Secure Sdn Bhd. yang mana mereka menyatakan bahawa mereka telah membuat alat ‘Stopjack’ lebih dahulu dan meminta penggunaan cap dagangan ‘Stoptheif’ dihentikan.
Plaintif-plaintif (USA 1 Co., USA3 Co. & MY2 Sdn. Bhd.) telah menyaman Car Secure Sdn Bhd kerana melanggar hak cipta dan memohon remedi-remedi berikut:-
(i) gantirugi bagi perlanggaran hak cipta dan ‘passing off’
(ii) gantirugi bagi mendapatkan informasi daripada Plaintif-plaintif secara penipuan dan kemudiannya menggunakan informasi tersebut untuk membina produk yang serupa atau sama dengan produk plaintif-plaintif dan juga menggunakan cap dagangan yang sama dengan cap dagangan plaintif; dan
(iii) gantirugi bagi konversyen (conversion)
Di Mahkamah Tinggi, keputusan yang diberikan menyebelahi pihak defenden berdasarkan kepada alasan-alasan berikut:
(i) bahawa pihak plaintif tiada apa-apa untuk dilindungi kerana mereka tidak mempunyai patent untuk alat ‘Stoptheif’ di Malaysia dan dengan itu tiada apa untuk dilindungi melalui tuntutan ‘passing off’.
(ii) Bahawa informasi yang didapati sebelum perlaksanaan perjanjian rahsia tidak diberikan di atas dasar obligasi rahsia.
(iii) Bahawa plaintif kedua hanyalah pengedar dan tidak mempunyai hak kepunyaan untuk membuat tuntutan untuk ‘passing off’.
(iv) Alasan tuntutan konversyen bagi hak-hak harta intelek telah disalahertikan yang mana ianya tidak berkaitan dengan hal ‘ethereal’ atau ‘ephemeral’ seperti informasi; dan
(v) Bukti kerosakan sebenar adalah elemen yang perlu semasa perbicaraan dan kemungkinan berlaku kerosakan tersebut mencukupi hanya di dalam kes permohonan interim untuk injuksi quia timet
Plaintif kini merayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi.
Finals
Intellectual Property / Contract : In the Court of Appeal
USA 1 Co., USA3 Co. & MY2 Sdn. Bhd. v Car Secure Sdn. Bhd.
USA1 Company and USA3 company both companies incorporated in USA were the owner of the intellectual property rights in the Stopthief Device. The second plaintiff MY2 Sdn Bhd was incorporated in Malaysia to market the Stopthief device in Malaysia.
Both the plaintiffs (USA1 and USA3 company) claimed that Car-Secure Sdn Bhd’s device ('Stopjack') was derived from their Stopthief device.
USA3 company had on 1st April 1995 entered into a licence agreement ('licence agreement') with Bermuda Company of which the Mr. Tan, was a director. Subsequently Mr Tan resigned from Bermuda company and became a director of Car-Secure Shd Bhd.
Pursuant to this, confidential information pertaining to the Stopthief device was provided to one Mr Bala, the CEO of Car Secure Sdn. Bhd. & a Confidentiality agreement ('confidentiality agreement') was signed between Mr. Tan and Car Secure Sdn. Bhd. Thereafter, Mr Tan resigned from Car- Secure Sdn Bhd.
On 27 November 1995, MY2 Sdn. Bhd. launched the 'Stopthief' device throughout Malaysia amidst heavy publicity and promotions. They had submitted their application for patent protection to MyIPO on 1 Nov. 1995.
On 30th November 1995, 'Stopjack' was launched by Car Secure Sdn. Bhd. in Malaysia.
Subsequently, MY2 Sdn Bhd received a letter from Car Secure Sdn Bhd who claimed to have developed the ‘Stopjack’ device earlier and demanded the cessation of the use of the trade mark 'Stopthief'.
The plaintiffs (USA1 and USA3 and MY2 Sdn Bhd ) immediately sued Car Secure Sdn. Bhd. for breach of copyright claiming the following remedies :-
(i) damages for breach of copyright and ‘passing off ’
(iii) damages for fraudulently obtaining information from the Plaintiffs and thereafter utilising the information to manufacture a product identical or similar to the plaintiffs' product and by using a trade mark similar to the plaintiffs' trade mark; and
(iv) damages in conversion.
In the High Court judgment was given in favour of the Defendant on the following grounds:-
(i) that the plaintiffs had nothing to protect because they did not have any patent for the Stopthief device in Malaysia and hence they had nothing to protect by way of an action based on ‘passing – off ‘ ;
(ii) the information imparted prior to the execution of the confidentiality agreement was not imparted under any obligation of confidence;
(iii)the second plaintiff is a mere distributor and cannot acquire any proprietary rights sufficient to sustain an action in passing off;
(iv) the cause of action of conversion in respect of intellectual property rights is misconceived as it does not relate to ethereal or ephemeral matter such as information; and
(v) proof of actual damage is a necessary element at trial and only in the case of an interim application for a quia timet injunction would the likelihood of damage suffice.
The Plaintiffs now appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
