Design or Copyright? — The Case of Alustil Sdn Bhd vs. Vitally Sdn Bhd

 


🔍 Case

Parties: Vitally Sdn Bhd (Defendant) vs. Alustil Sdn Bhd (Plaintiff)

Legal Issue: Is copyright protection available for a work that is also registered as an industrial design?

Subject Matter: 3D designs and technical drawings for a shelf profile system.

Alustil claimed that Vitally had imitated its custom furniture aluminium profile system. These pieces were useful in addition to being aesthetically pleasing. According to Alustil, these were creative works that should be protected by copyright.

Vitally countered that Section 7(5) of the Copyright Act 1987 prohibited copyright protection because the design had been registered as an industrial design and used in over 50 goods.



🏢 Alustil Sdn Bhd

Alustil is a Malaysian company that specialises in architectural fittings and high-end aluminium kitchen equipment. Alustil is well-known for its simple, elegant designs that combine durability with modern design. They cater to homeowners, interior designers, and real estate developers seeking luxury kitchen solutions, highlighting high-end materials and creative engineering.

🏢 Vitally Sdn Bhd

Vitally is an important producer and supplier of aluminium goods. Architectural solutions, furniture fittings, and aluminium composite materials are among their offerings. Vitally is known for providing useful, affordable, and adaptable aluminium solutions, and it offers to both residential and commercial markets.



🧾 Key Legal Principle

Section 7(5) of the Malaysian Copyright Act 1987:

"Copyright shall not subsist under this Act in any design which is registered under any written law relating to industrial design..."

For products intended for mass production, this prevents dual protection, both copyright and design registration.



💬 Analysis

This case demonstrates the legal significance of the distinction between creativity and commerce. A designer may think that their idea is automatically protected by copyright, but unless they carefully arrange, that protection may disappear once the design is turned into an industrial product.

The court had to decide:
  • if the designs created by Alustil were still considered "artistic works," and
  • if copyright protection was not applicable to mass applications.

The answer: yes, that copyright was in fact excluded by bulk application.



📌 Results & Consequences

Due to the fact that the design had been:
  • Industrial design registration
  • Applied to over 50 commercial goods

It was no longer protected by Section 7(5) copyright. Alustil's claim didn't work.

⚖️Takeaway: Don't assume copyright applies if your design is intended for production and sale. Make sure you properly register your industrial design.



✍️ Blogger's Perspective

It's odd that copyright may disappear if your design gets popular. For designers and creators, this example serves as a reminder to safeguard your work with the right system before putting it on the production line.



💡 Conclusion

There is more to Alustil vs. Vitally than just furniture parts. It has to do with planning. It demonstrates that knowing the rules regulating your creative process is equally as crucial as the actual process.

This is one of those situations that could prevent you from suffering significant losses, regardless of whether you are an independent designer, maker, or startup founder.



By: Nur Adriana Binti Mohamed Razif



📚 Sources

Comments

Post a Comment