It took 10 years, until justice in Thailand turned into the favour of damaged original artists !    From 2003 until 2013

This foundry produced most of the ILLEGAL infringements world wide of many original artists.......

now they are shut down !

Done by ONE ARTIST, her endurance and her investment.

Read below:

Date:                     June 28, 2013

Re:                         Thailand – Criminal Action against Ms. Thidarat Sukawanna for Infringement on “Geese in        

                               Reeds” Sculptural Works

 

Dear Impala,

 

This morning, we attended the hearing of the Supreme Court Judgment for your case at the IP&IT Court. Unfortunately, the Defendant failed to appear in court for sentencing as scheduled. After waiting for some time, the Court officer contacted the Defendant’s attorney, and was informed that he has been unable to contact the Defendant (Mrs. Thidarat) for a lengthy period of time, since the Defendant’s husband had passed away last year. For failure to appear in court as scheduled, the judge issued an arrest warrant and rescheduled the court date for August 6, 2013. If the Defendant fails to appear again on August 6, the arrest warrant will take effect and the Court will pronounce the Judgment without further postponement. 

 

Please contact me if you have any further questions about the situation. I hope you have a wonderful birthday and are enjoying the day.

 

Sincerely,......

 

Date:                     August 8, 2013

Our Ref.:              L977-2CPL           

 

Re:                         Thailand – Criminal Action against Ms. Thidarat Sukawanna for Infringement on “Geese in Reeds” Sculptural Works

 

Dear Impala,

 

Summary of the Supreme Court Judgment

 

The Supreme Court stated that the following facts have already been concluded without any arguments:

 

·         The Co-Plaintiff is the proprietor owner of the copyrighted work called “Geese in Reeds,” which was first published in November 15, 1997 in Germany, a member country of the Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

·         The Co-Plaintiff has also advertised the work on the internet and in other media.

·         The Defendant is the wife of Mr. Piyaphan Phuksapa, who is a managing partner of Siam Handicraft Ltd., Part.

·         Siam Handicraft Ltd., Part. owns the website www.spsculpture.com, where the sculpture called “Ducks in Reeds” had been advertised.

·         The police conducted a raid action at the house and factory of the Defendant and found 59 pieces of duck sculptures, 3 pieces of reed sculptures, 2 pieces of finished “Ducks in Reeds” sculptures,  and 1 CD containing the image of “Ducks in Reeds” sculpture. All items were seized as evidence and criminal charges were filed against the Defendant for copyright infringement.

 

Then, the Supreme Court considered the case and concluded that this case was commenced by the Co-Plaintiff. The Co-Plaintiff engaged an investigator, who found that the infringer was Siam Handicraft Ltd., Part. The Co-Defendant, therefore, filed charges with the police, and police conducted the raid action where the counterfeited goods were found and seized. The Defendant is the wife of Mr. Piyaphan Phuksapa, who is a managing partner of Siam Handicraft Ltd., Part. The Defendant is therefore also an owner of the factory where the counterfeit goods were found. According to the business license, the Defendant’s factory engages in making Buddha bronze statues, which is related to making artistic sculpture works. Although the Defendant’s business and Mr. Piyaphan’s business are separate from each other, there is reason to believe that the Defendant and Mr. Piyaphan jointly operate their businesses.     

 

The Supreme Court, then, considered that the expression of ideas of the Co-Plaintiff’s work and the “Ducks in Reeds” of the Defendant are the same. While the Co-Plaintiff has proven the creation of such work, the Defendant has not. Therefore, it is impossible that such similarity is due to a coincidence. Although the Defendant claimed that they had no intention to imitate the Co-Plaintiff’s work, as they had received an order from a customer to produce all the seized goods, the Defendant failed to prove that the source of such order. Therefore, considering that the Co-Plaintiff is a proprietor owner of the copyrighted work called “Geese in Reeds,” and the “Ducks in Reeds” sculptures of the Defendant are similar to the Co-Plaintiff’s work, the Defendant has jointly operated with her husband to produce and offer for sale sculptures that infringe on the Co-Plaintiff’s work. The Defendant has the intention to adapt the Co-Plaintiff’s copyrighted works and offer said products for sale.

 

The Supreme Court, therefore, ruled that the Plaintiff infringed on the Co-Plaintiff’s copyrighted work under Section 69 paragraph 2, Section 27(2), Section 70 paragraph 2, and Section 31(1) of the Copyright Act. A fine of THB 150,000 for adaptation of a copyrighted work and a fine of THB 150,000 for offering infringing products for sale was imposed. Therefore the total fine is THB 300,000. Half of the fine is to be paid to the Co-Plaintiff. All infringing products shall belong to the Co-Plaintiff, as the owner of the copyright. The rest of the seized goods (one picture of the “Ducks in Reeds” sculpture and one CD-ROM) are to be kept in court custody for destruction.