A finding of copyright infringement requires proof of sufficient objective similarity and causal connection between the original and allegedly infringing works, neither of which were established in this case.

[1] The present appeal is against the decision of the learned High Court Judge handed down on 14 April 2010 dismissing the appellants' claim against the respondents. The appellants were the plaintiffs whilst the respondents were the defendants at the Court below.

Factual Background

[2] The appellants' claim against the respondents was one of copyright infringement. The 1st appellant (the 1st plaintiff) at all material times was the owner of the copyright subsisting in six drawings for a type of water meter known as the Kent Water Meter (Kent Meter). The 1st appellant has granted the 2nd appellant an exclusive licence in relation to the copyright in the drawings. The appellants claimed that the respondents have infringed the 1st appellant's copyright in the drawings by possessing for the purposes of trade or business, selling, supplying, importing or otherwise dealing in or with the water meters under model reference LXH-15 (Ningbo Meter), and that the respondents knew or had reason to believe that the import and sale or offer for sale in Malaysia and dealing in or within Malaysia of the Ningbo Meter constitute an infringement of the 1st appellant's copyright in the drawings in respect of the Kent Meter.

[3] The respondents in their defence admitted that they imported the Ningbo Meter from Ningbo Water Meter Co Ltd, an established and leading water meter manufacturer in China. The respondents however denied that the Ningbo Meter infringes the copyright in the drawings of the appellants' Kent Meter. It is the respondents' case that the Ningbo Meter has been independently developed by Ningbo Water Meter Co Ltd in China. The respondents admitted that they had imported the Ningbo Meter to supply the same to Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd (SYABAS) in 2005 and 2006.

[4] The case went for full trial at the High Court in Kuala Lumpur for three days, where witnesses were called by both sides, to give evidence in Court. At the end of the trial, the learned judge dismissed the appellants' claim against the respondents on the grounds inter alia that there is no infringement of copyright by the respondents; there is no sufficient objective similarity between the Ningbo Meter and the Kent Meter; there is no causal connection between the Ningbo Meter and the Kent Meter; and the respondents have proved on the balance of probability that the Ningbo Meter was independently developed by Ningbo Water Co Ltd in China.

The Appellants' Grounds Of Appeal

[5] The appellants' grounds of appeal are essentially as follows:

(a) the learned High Court Judge erred in fact and law in finding that there are evidence of independent design in the Ningbo Meter and that the similarities (if any) between the Kent Meter and the Ningbo Meter stem from a common design concept or idea; and in not giving sufficient weight in considering the following matters:

(i) the similarities shared by the Kent Meter and the Ningbo Meter, in particular, the general arrangement, counter case, chamber assembly, top plate, piston and working chamber, are too close, numerous or extensive to be not the result of copying;

(ii) the differences between the Kent Meter and the Ningbo Meter, were not material to the appellants' claim for copyright infringement; and

(iii) the substantial and qualitative parts of the Kent Meter had been reproduced in the Ningbo Meter.

(b) the learned judge erred in fact and law in making the above finding in not giving sufficient we