Table of Content
1. transfer of cases to appropriate jurisdiction based on local relevance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. plaintiffs' claims on copyright infringement due to unauthorized use. (Para 4 , 5)
3. defendants' arguments emphasize convenience through local trials. (Para 6 , 7)
4. opposition based on intentions of the ip court's establishment. (Para 8 , 9)
5. jurisdictional authority of ip court and discretion in transfer applications. (Para 10 , 11)

[1] This judgment concerns two suits - Civil Suit No 22IP-32-06/2016 (1st Suit) and Civil Suit No 22IP-33-06/2016 (2nd Suit). The 1st and 2nd Suits shall be referred to in this judgment as the "2 Suits".

[2] The 2 Suits raised a novel question of whether the Intellectual Property High Court in Kuala Lumpur (IP Court) should exercise its discretion under O 57 r 1(1) of the Rules of 2012 (RC) to transfer the 2 Suits to the Johor Bahru High Court (JB Court) for the following reasons:-

(1) the cause of action arose in Johor Bahru (JB);

(2) the defendants in the 2 Suits (Defendants) have their place of business in JB; and

(3) the facts on which the 2 Suits are based, occurred in JB.

B. Background

[3] The 2 Suits have been filed by 3 plaintiffs. On 25 Au

Click Here to Read the rest of this document