The Case of Alustil Sdn Bhd v Vitally Sdn Bhd

     In the case of Alustil Sdn Bhd vs Vitally Sdn Bhd, where Alustil sued Vitally for copyright infringement on their technical drawing of its shelf profile. This discusses and argues on the case of brand violation regarding a subject matter that's under industrial design

    The plaintiff claims it as copyright infringement under section 7(5) of the Copyright Act 1987 and claims that the copyright is a registered industrial design. The design of the defendant’s ‘violating shelf profile’ closely resembles or replicates the work and shape similar to the plaintiff's registered industrial design.

    However, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s claim has two aspects:

1. The defendant’s violation shelf profile breaches the plaintiff’s copyright.
2. The profile is similar to the plaintiff's registered design.

    Considering Section 7(5) of the Copyright Act 1987, if the plaintiff can maintain the action, which is assumed upon a claim for copyright infringement of an alleged work or a part of it, which is the subject of an industrial design registered under the name of the plaintiff. In this case, it could not, as this applies to artistic work and not industrial design. If said design is registered under the Industrial Design Act 1966, only then is Alustil’s claim of infringement.

    Under 13B of the Copyright Act 1987, the application of this act is to ‘artistic work,’ which does not apply to the Industrial Design Act 1966.

    The outcome of this is that Alustil’s claim has been dismissed, costing them RM10,000. Doing so makes us question whether we can or not plead. When the matter comes to copyright infringement, it needs to be specified on what kind of design is used for and in which sector. Some copyright acts might be irrelevant to the big picture of the case.

1221304428

ADRIANA BINTI HALIM