JUDGMENT

Chao Hick Tin J:

The plaintiffs are a corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware, USA. The business of the plaintiffs is in the design, manufacture and selling of heavy industrial equipment used in welding and other industrial applications.

The defendants are companies incorporated in Singapore. The 1st defendant is in the business of manufacturing and repairing specialised machinery. The business of the 2nd defendant includes manufacturing machine tools and accessories (for example, small cutting tools, precision measuring tools or tool holders).

In this action the plaintiffs seek to restrain the defendants from infringing their copyright in the artistic works of the industrial drawings of the plaintiffs' industrial equipment and to restrain the defendants from reproducing for sale the plaintiffs' industrial equipment.

On the filing of the writ in this action on 19 April 1990, the plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction and Anton Piller order against the defendants. This interim order was eventually discharged in 1 November 1990. There is no need for me to deal with those proceedings here as the matter that came before me was an appeal against a decision of the learned Assistant Registrar refusing the defendants' application for further and better particulars. I dismissed the appeal and now give my reasons.

In the statement of claim filed on 18 June 1990, the plaintiffs aver that they are designers, manufacturers and vendors of these industrial equipment:

Rotators

(a) Rotator Model A consisting of power and idler rolls;

(b) Rotator Model AA consisting of power and idler rolls;

(c) Rotator Model AAA consisting of power and idler rolls;

(d) Rotator Model B consisting of power and idler rolls;

(e) Rotator Model C consisting of power and idler rolls;

(f) Rotator Model D consisting of power and idler rolls;

(g) Rotator Model E consisting of power and idler rolls;

Manipulators

(h) Manipulator Model 66;

(i) Manipulator Model 99;

(j) Manipulator Model 1212.

The plaintiffs also state that the two defendants are manufacturing and selling these industrial equipment:

Rotators

(a) Rotator Model A5R consisting of power and idler rolls;

(b) Rotator Model A10R consisting of power and idler rolls;

(c) Rotator Model A20R consisting of power and idler rolls;

(d) Rotator Model B30R consisting of power and idler rolls;

(e) Rotator Model C60R consisting of power and idler rolls;

(f) Rotator Model D90R consisting of power and idler rolls;

(g) Rotator Model E120R consisting of power and idler rolls.

Manipulator

(h) Manipulator Model 2020 STD;

(i) Manipulator Model 3030 STD;

(j) Manipulator Model 4040 STD.

The plaintiffs claim that they were and are at all material times the owners of the copyright subsisting in the artistic works comprised in the industrial drawings on the basis of which the plaintiffs' rotators and manipulators are manufactured. They also claim to be copyright owners of a certain warranty statement. The plaintiffs state that the industrial drawings were designed by "members of the plaintiffs' design office all of whom were at all material times employed by the plaintiffs. " Accordingly, such artistic works are protected by virtue of ss. 210 and 211 of the Copyright Act (Cap. 63) and r. 6 of the Copyright (International Protection) Regulations 1987.

In para. 11 of the statement of claim, the plaintiffs claim that they have sold large quantities of their rotators and manipulators, both in Singapore and internationally, as a result of which they have "established an excellent reputation in Singapore and internationally."

Under para. 15 of the statement of claim, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants have knowingly and without consent infringed the plaintiffs' copyright by, inter alia , reproducing the plaintiffs' industrial drawings or the plaintiffs' said rotators and manipulators and offering the defendants' rotators and manipulators for sale. The statement of claim then goes on to describe how, through private investigators, the plaintiffs hav