JUDGMENT

Mohd Radzi Harun J:

Introduction

[1] In this Suit, the Plaintiffs claim:

(i) ownership of the copyright under the Copyright Act 1987 ("CA 1987") that they argued subsists in the expression of idea in the pictures, drawings and diagrams (including the literatures) of the components of termite control constituting an underground reticulation system of termite control as enumerated in paras 11 (a)-(c) of their Amended Statement of Claim ("the Plaintiffs' Works");

(ii) infringement of the copyright of the Plaintiffs' Works by the Defendant through the reproduction of the same in the Defendant's termite reticulation system or otherwise from such works ("the Defendant's Infringing Work");

(iii) the Defendant was unlawfully selling the Defendant's Infringing Work or offering to sell the same;

(iv) the Defendant unlawfully used the Defendant's Infringing Work in its tender project documents;

(v) the Defendant was reproducing the Plaintiffs' Works without the Plaintiffs' license and permission; and

(vi) the Defendant had committed the tort of passing off and unlawful interference with the Plaintiffs' trade or business by causing confusion or attempt to cause confusion in the termite reticul