The court affirmed that the Plaintiff holds copyright in the design of a telekung, emphasizing evidence of originality and dismissing Defendant's claims of non-infringement.

Table of Content
1. presumption of facts based on established business practices. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. evidence provided by plaintiff witnesses regarding the creation and sale of the telekung. (Para 4)

[2] The Plaintiff sells "Telekung Siti Khadijah Klasik" (Plaintiff's Telekung) while "Ariani x WOW Telekung Nur Aleesya" (Defendant's Telekung) is sold by the Defendant.

[3] The following issues arise in this case:

(1) whether the court may presume under ss 4(1) and 114(f) of the Evidence Act 1950 (EA) that the common course of business regarding the Plaintiff's purchase of the Defendant's Telekung from "CJ WOW Shop" (a media platform which provides for home shopping through television, online and mobile phones) has been followed in this case;

(2) should weight be attached to exh D6 which is not tendered during the cross-examination of SP1 (author of the design of the Plaintiff's Telekung)?;

(3) does a telekung constitute a "graphic work" or a "work of artistic craftsmanship" within the meaning of s 3 of the Copyright Act 1987 ( CA )? I am not able to find any previous Malaysian case which has construed a "work of artistic craftsmanship" in s 3 ;

(4) if a telekung constitutes a "graphic work" under s 3 CA :-

(a) whether a telekung is eligible for copyright under CA in view of its religious function (for prayers). This is a novel question regarding the interpretation of s 7(2A) and (3)(a) ; and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document