Case Details
- Citation: [2023] SGHC 255
- Title: Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd v Encore Films Pte Ltd
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Date of decision: 11 September 2023
- Judges: Dedar Singh Gill J
- Hearing dates: 14 August 2023; 6 September 2023
- Originating claim: Originating Claim No 466 of 2022 (“OC 466”)
- Summons: Summons No 2172 of 2023 (“Summons 2172”)
- Other related summons (context): Summons No 926 of 2023; Summons No 2171 of 2023
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd
- Defendant/Respondent: Encore Films Pte Ltd
- Legal area: Intellectual Property — Copyright
- Core procedural issue: Whether the claimant had standing to sue for copyright infringement (locus standi) and whether the claim should be struck out under O 9 r 16 of the Rules of Court 2021
- Substantive copyright issue: Whether the claimant was an “exclusive licensee” under s 153(1) of the Copyright Act 2021 at the time of alleged infringement
- Key factual subject matter: Alleged infringement of copyright in the Chinese film “Moon Man”
- Copyright owner (licensor): Kaixin Mahua (“Kaixin”)
- Sub-licensing entity: HK Tiger (a related entity of the claimant in Hong Kong)
- Key agreements: (1) 19 August 2022 licence agreement between Kaixin and the claimant; (2) 20 August 2022 agreement between the claimant and HK Tiger
- Statutes referenced: Copyright Act (including Copyright Act 2006 and Copyright Act 2021 versions as relevant); Designs and Patents Act 1988
- Cases cited: [2023] SGHC 138; [2023] SGHC 255 (related earlier decision in the same dispute); Dendron GmbH v Regents of the University of California [2004] FSR 43 (referred to in submissions)
- Judgment length: 21 pages; 5,989 words
Summary
In Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd v Encore Films Pte Ltd, the High Court considered an application to strike out a copyright infringement claim on the basis that the claimant lacked standing to sue. The defendant argued that, although the claimant had obtained an exclusive licence from the copyright owner, the claimant had subsequently licensed away its exclusive distribution rights to a related entity (HK Tiger). The defendant contended that this meant the claimant was no longer an “exclusive licensee” at the time of the alleged infringement, and therefore failed the statutory locus standi requirement.
The court dismissed the striking out application. The sole issue was whether the claimant satisfied s 153(1) of the Copyright Act 2021 at the relevant time. Applying the striking out framework under O 9 r 16 of the Rules of Court 2021, the court held that the defendant’s position did not justify the drastic remedy of striking out at an early stage. In particular, the court found that the English authority relied upon by the defendant (Dendron) was inapplicable to the statutory and contractual structure before it, and that the claimant’s status as an exclusive licensee was not displaced in the manner asserted by the defendant.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The claimant, Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd, is a company incorporated in the People’s Republic of China. It is in the business of selling and distributing films worldwide. The defendant, Encore Films Pte Ltd, is a Singapore-incorporated company that distributes films in Singapore and other countries in Southeast Asia. The dispute concerns alleged copyright infringement relating to a top-grossing Chinese film titled “Moon Man”.
The copyright owner of “Moon Man” is Kaixin Mahua (“Kaixin”). On 19 August 2022, Kaixin entered into a licence agreement with the claimant (the “19 August Agreement”). The 19 August Agreement granted the claimant an exclusive licence in respect of specified rights to “Moon Man” in all jurisdictions worldwide, save for the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Korea. The licence was stated to run from August 2022 to August 2033. The agreement covered multiple rights relevant to exploitation of an audiovisual work, including distribution for screening, reproduction, distribution of audio-visual products, television broadcasting and screening, communication on information networks, and VOD screening.
Crucially, the 19 August Agreement also contained provisions addressing the nature of the licence and the claimant’s ability to sub-licence. Clause 2.5 described the licensing as “exclusive licensing”, meaning the licensor would not further exercise the licensed rights or permit third parties to do so. Clause 2.6 then granted the claimant the right to transfer the licence and/or grant sub-licences, including licensing third parties to carry out all or part of the licensed matters within the permitted areas and timeframes, without exceeding the scope of the licence.
According to the claimant, on 20 August 2022 it granted an exclusive licence to its related entity in Hong Kong, known as “HK Tiger” (the “20 August Agreement”), in respect of the relevant rights to “Moon Man”. The parties’ submissions indicated that, aside from the names of the parties, the terms of the 20 August Agreement were identical to those in the 19 August Agreement. The claimant’s case was that it retained the statutory standing to sue for infringement notwithstanding this sub-licensing arrangement.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The legal issue was narrow but significant: whether the claimant fulfilled the locus standi requirement under s 153(1) of the Copyright Act 2021 at the time of the alleged infringement. In other words, the court had to decide whether the claimant was an “exclusive licensee” within the meaning of the statute when the defendant’s alleged infringing acts occurred.
The defendant’s argument turned on the effect of the 20 August Agreement. The defendant accepted that the claimant had obtained an exclusive licence from Kaixin under the 19 August Agreement, but contended that the claimant had wholly licensed its exclusive distribution and other rights to HK Tiger. The defendant relied on the English case of Dendron GmbH v Regents of the University of California [2004] FSR 43 to argue that the claimant’s position as an exclusive licensee was “supplanted” by HK Tiger and therefore ceased at the time of infringement.
The claimant’s response was that it was a statutory exclusive licensee because the exclusive licence was granted by the copyright owner, Kaixin. The claimant further argued that the 20 August Agreement, even if it purported to be “exclusive”, was not a statutory exclusive licence in the same sense as the licence granted by the copyright owner, and that Dendron was factually and legally inapplicable to the Singapore statutory framework.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by setting out the procedural standard for striking out. Under O 9 r 16 of the Rules of Court 2021, the court may strike out any part of a pleading if it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, is an abuse of process, or if it is in the interests of justice to do so. The court emphasised that striking out is a serious step and should not be used to decide contested factual or legal issues prematurely, particularly where the claim may have a real prospect of success.
To guide the analysis, the court referred to the Court of Appeal’s summary of the tests for striking out under O 9 r 16(1)(a), (b), and (c) in Iskandar bin Rahmat and others v Attorney-General and another [2022] 2 SLR 1018. While the detailed exposition of each limb is not reproduced in the extract provided, the thrust is that the court assesses whether the pleading has some chance of success and whether it is appropriate to shut the case down at an early stage rather than allowing it to proceed to trial.
On the substantive locus standi question, the court identified the statutory requirement in s 153(1) of the Copyright Act 2021. The claimant’s standing depended on whether it was an exclusive licensee at the time of infringement. The defendant’s argument was that the claimant’s exclusive rights were wholly transferred or licensed away to HK Tiger, so the claimant no longer held the exclusive position contemplated by the statute. The defendant therefore sought to characterise the claimant’s exclusive licence as effectively terminated or displaced by the subsequent sub-licence.
The court rejected the defendant’s reliance on Dendron. Although the defendant invoked Dendron to support the proposition that an exclusive licensee’s standing can be supplanted by a later arrangement, the court held that Dendron was inapplicable to the present case. The reasoning, as reflected in the judgment’s structure, turned on the statutory and contractual context in Singapore. Dendron was an English authority addressing a different legal framework and different statutory language. More importantly, the Singapore Copyright Act 2021’s locus standi provision and the structure of the licence agreements in this case did not support the defendant’s attempt to treat the claimant’s sub-licensing arrangement as automatically removing the claimant’s statutory standing.
In analysing the licence agreements, the court focused on the nature of the 19 August Agreement and the rights it conferred. The 19 August Agreement expressly granted the claimant an exclusive licence from the copyright owner, Kaixin, for a defined term and defined territories (with specified exclusions). The agreement also expressly contemplated sub-licensing through clause 2.6, permitting the claimant to grant licences to third parties to carry out all or part of the licensed matters within the permitted scope. That contractual architecture undermined the defendant’s contention that the claimant’s exclusive status was necessarily lost once it sub-licensed to HK Tiger.
Accordingly, the court concluded that the defendant’s position did not warrant striking out. The court’s approach reflects a common judicial reluctance to decide complex questions of licence interpretation and statutory standing on a striking out application, especially where the claimant points to the existence of an exclusive licence granted by the copyright owner and where the defendant’s reliance on foreign authority is not clearly transferable.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court dismissed the defendant’s striking out application in Summons 2172. The practical effect is that OC 466 was allowed to proceed, meaning the claimant’s copyright infringement claim would not be shut down at the pleadings stage on the ground of lack of standing.
By dismissing the application, the court preserved the claimant’s ability to litigate the infringement allegations on their merits, while leaving the defendant to contest infringement and any related issues at trial. The decision therefore functions as an important procedural and substantive clarification: challenges to locus standi based on licence arrangements and sub-licensing will not automatically succeed on a striking out application where the claimant has a prima facie exclusive licence from the copyright owner and where the defendant’s legal reliance (including on foreign authorities) is not compelling in the Singapore statutory context.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision matters for practitioners because it addresses the intersection between (i) contractual licensing arrangements in the film and entertainment industry and (ii) the statutory locus standi requirements for copyright infringement claims in Singapore. In cross-border film distribution, it is common for copyright owners to grant exclusive licences to distributors or intermediaries, who then sub-licence rights to local distributors or regional entities. Tiger Pictures illustrates that sub-licensing does not necessarily deprive the original exclusive licensee of standing to sue, particularly where the original licence is exclusive and granted by the copyright owner and the contract expressly permits sub-licensing.
Substantively, the case signals that courts will scrutinise whether the defendant’s “displacement” theory is supported by the Singapore statutory language and the contractual terms, rather than importing reasoning from foreign cases without a close fit. The court’s view that Dendron was inapplicable is a reminder that English authorities may be persuasive only where the statutory framework and legal questions align. For lawyers drafting or litigating licence agreements, the decision underscores the importance of carefully structuring exclusivity, defining the scope of rights, and expressly addressing sub-licensing and the consequences of sub-licensing.
From a litigation strategy perspective, the case also demonstrates the limits of striking out. Even where a defendant raises a serious locus standi argument, the court may refuse to strike out if the claim has a real prospect of success and the issues require fuller examination of the licence instruments and their legal effect. This is particularly relevant for early-stage applications in IP disputes, where the factual matrix and document interpretation can be complex.
Legislation Referenced
- Copyright Act 2021 (2020 Rev Ed) — in particular s 153(1) (standing/locus standi for exclusive licensees)
- Copyright Act 2006 (referenced in the judgment’s legislative context)
- Copyright Act 2021 (referenced in the judgment’s legislative context)
- Designs and Patents Act 1988 (referenced in the judgment’s legislative context)
- Rules of Court 2021 — O 9 r 16 (striking out pleadings and other documents)
Cases Cited
- [2023] SGHC 138 (Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd v Encore Films Pte Ltd) (earlier decision in the same dispute; referenced for background and procedural history)
- [2023] SGHC 255 (this decision)
- [2022] 2 SLR 1018 (Iskandar bin Rahmat and others v Attorney-General and another) (test for striking out under O 9 r 16)
- Dendron GmbH v Regents of the University of California [2004] FSR 43 (relied upon by defendant; held inapplicable)
Source Documents
This article analyses [2023] SGHC 255 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.