The IP Court has jurisdiction to hear IP disputes regardless of their geographical origin within its local jurisdiction, emphasizing the importance of specialized courts in maintaining legal consistency.

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 August 2016, only the first plaintiff (1st Plaintiff) discontinued the 2 Suits with costs of RM1,000.00 for each case to be paid by the 1st Plaintiff to each of the Defendants. Henceforth, the 2 Suits are proceeded with by the second and third plaintiffs (2nd and 3rd Plaintiff). This judgment will refer to the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs as the "Plaintiffs".

[4] In these 2 Suits, the Plaintiffs pleaded as follows, among others, in their Statements of Claim (2 SOC):-

(1) the Plaintiffs carry on for commercial purposes, among others, the recording of songs and other performances by singers and artistes, the making and production of sound recordings, audio-visual recordings and karaoke recordings;

(2) the 2nd Plaintiff owns the copyright in the sound and/or karaoke recordings entitled "Gadis Melayu" (1st Work) and "Seroja" (2nd Work) by Dato' Jamal Abdillah;

(3) the 3rd Plaintiff is the copyright owner of "Percayalah" (3rd Work) and "Cindai" (4th Work) by Dato' Siti Nurhaliza;

(4) in the 1st Suit, the first defendant company (1st Defendant) has its:-

(a) registered address in Muar, Johore; and

(b) business address in JB (1st Defendant's Business Premises);

(5) in the 2nd Suit, the second defendant company (2nd Defendant) has its registered and business addresses (2nd Defendant's Business Premises) in JB;

(6) the records of the Companies Commission of Malaysia show that:-

(a) the 1st Defendant operates a "nightclub" business; and

(b) the 2nd Defendant's business is "club house, music karaoke, amusement and recreation centre";

(7) on or around 13 December 2012, 21 April 2013, 2 July 2015 and 25 August 2015, licensing officers from Recording Industry Association of Malaysia (RIM) had visited the 1st Defendant's Business Premises and found that the 1st Defendant had stored, reproduced and/or played the sound and/or karaoke recording of the 1st to 3rd Works for the purposes of the 1st Defendant's nightclub business without the Plaintiffs' license, permission or consent;

(8) on or about 25 August 2015, the Enforcement Division of the Ministry of Domestic Trade, Co-operatives and Consumerism (KPDNKK) had raided the 1st Defendant's Business Premises and seized, among others, the 1st Defendant's server which consisted the 1st to 3rd Works;

(9) on or around 13 December 2012 and 25 August 2015, RIM's licensing officers had visited the 2nd Defendant's Business Premises and found that the 2nd Defendant had stored, reproduced and/or played the sound and/or karaoke recording of the 1st and 4th Works for the purposes of the 2nd Defendant's business as a "club house, music karaoke, amusement and recreation centre" without the Plaintiffs' license, permission or consent;

(10) on or about 25 August 2015, KPDNKK raided the 2nd Defendant's Business Premises and seized, among others, the 2nd Defen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document