Case Study: Mesuma Sports Sdn Bhd v Majlis Sukan Negara [2015] – Who Owns the Copyright?
Introduction
Copyright ownership can be more complicated than it looks—especially when national identity, public institutions, and private business interests are involved. A prime example is the Malaysian case of Mesuma Sports Sdn Bhd v Majlis Sukan Negara [2015] 6 MLJ 465, which highlights just how tangled things can get when intellectual property meets national pride.
At the heart of the case was a tiger-striped logo, proudly worn by Malaysian athletes on the international stage. What seemed like a straightforward branding issue turned into a legal battle over who truly owned the rights to this iconic symbol.
Background
Mesuma Sports Sdn Bhd (Mesuma) is a local sportswear company that had been producing uniforms for Malaysia’s national athletes. One of their standout designs—a bold, tiger-striped logo—quickly became a visual trademark of Malaysian sports on the world stage, including events like the Commonwealth Games.
But things got complicated when Mesuma claimed they owned the copyright to the logo. On the other side, Majlis Sukan Negara (MSN), or Malaysia’s National Sports Council, argued that the logo had been created for them and that they were the rightful copyright holders.
This disagreement wasn’t just a business spat—it made its way up to Malaysia’s highest court, the Federal Court.
The Legal Questions
The court had to answer a few key questions:
-
Who actually owned the copyright to the logo under Malaysian law?
-
Was the logo a “commissioned work” under Section 26(3)(a) of the Copyright Act 1987?
-
Did Mesuma have the right to claim copyright, or were they simply a supplier?
What the Court Decided
The Federal Court ultimately sided with Majlis Sukan Negara. Here’s what they found:
-
The logo was a commissioned work. MSN had requested the logo and paid for its creation—this was enough to count as a "commission" under the law.
-
Copyright goes to the commissioner—unless agreed otherwise. According to Section 26(3)(a) of the Malaysian Copyright Act 1987, when a work is commissioned, the copyright belongs to the party that commissioned it, unless there’s a written agreement saying otherwise.
-
No such agreement existed. There was no contract showing that Mesuma retained copyright ownership.
-
Mesuma acted more like a vendor. While they produced the uniforms and used the logo, they didn’t design it independently or claim ownership through a proper legal framework.
What This Means for Copyright Law
-
Commissioned Work Doesn’t Automatically Belong to the Creator
If you pay someone to create a design or logo, chances are you own the copyright—unless a contract says otherwise. -
Put It in Writing
This case is a strong reminder of the importance of clear, written agreements when creating anything involving intellectual property. -
Using Something Doesn’t Mean You Own It
Just because a company uses a logo widely doesn’t mean they have copyright over it. Ownership comes down to how the work originated—and the paperwork behind it.
Why This Case Matters
This case is a landmark in Malaysian IP law. It clears up how copyright works when designs are created for government bodies, and it sends a clear message to businesses: if you want to protect your creative work, get your contracts in order.
More broadly, the case also touches on something deeper—the intersection of commercial interest and national identity. The tiger-striped logo wasn’t just a brand; it was a symbol of pride. And that made the question of who owned it all the more important.
Final Thoughts
For me I believe that creators, designers, and companies should not rely on assumptions. If you’re designing a logo, producing content, or creating anything with commercial or symbolic value—get it in writing. As an artist myself I believe that every work that I produce is solely mine alone and I think that my rights should be protected the same as every other artist. Therefore, as a final thoughts copyright isn't just about creation—it's about control, contracts, and clarity. We should know our rights and protect ourselves so that we do not get taken for granted.
Comments
Post a Comment