Thailand / Casos nacionales
Supreme Court Judgment 2750/2537 — Royal Institute Dictionary
Casos nacionales. La inclusión en esta ficha no convierte una referencia extranjera en una decisión nacional. Se conserva el estado y el alcance de la fuente.
Expediente y fuentes
- Nombre
- Supreme Court Judgment 2750/2537 — Royal Institute Dictionary
- Cita
- ฎีกา 2750/2537
- Tribunal
- Supreme Court of Thailand, Intellectual Property division
- Instancia
- última instancia
- Fechas
- year
- 1994
- Estado
- year-only-reporter
- Resultado
- Copyright and infringement affirmed; appellate relief modified and unsupported components denied.
- Resumen
- Originality was not novelty: the dictionary was protected because its expression originated in the claimant's own initiative and effort rather than copying; the defendants infringed substantial expression.
- Antecedentes
- The Royal Institute prepared its 1982 dictionary through collection, alphabetical arrangement, pronunciation, definitions, etymology and illustrations. Defendants' 1987 dictionaries reproduced about 14,000 definitions verbatim, modified or rearranged about 19,000 and copied about 130 illustrations and presentation features; a manager admitted infringement.
- Historia procesal
- The Royal Institute filed a civil copyright suit. The trial court dismissed; the appellate court found liability, awarded damages and ordered delivery. Both sides appealed. The Supreme Court upheld copyright and infringement but narrowed remedies and damages, rejecting unproved passing-off, market-loss and future-damage components and holding delivery available only through the criminal statutory mechanism then in force.
- Cuestión jurídica
- Whether a dictionary using a conventional method nevertheless originated in the claimant's own work and whether the defendants copied a substantial protected expression.
- Criterio
- Originality was not novelty: the dictionary was protected because its expression originated in the claimant's own initiative and effort rather than copying; the defendants infringed substantial expression.
- Fundamento decisivo
- A work may be original without being novel when it originates in the claimant's own creative undertaking and is not copied or adapted without permission.
- Límites
- This pre-1994-Act case concerned a documented institutional human compilation. Its references to labour cannot alone resolve whether prompting or selecting model output makes the output originate in a claimant, and it did not consider AI, probabilistic generation or autonomous expression.
- Relevancia
- doctrina-general
- Referencias relacionadas
- Peso del precedente
- Final Supreme Court national authority with high guiding weight; Thailand does not operate a strict common-law stare decisis system, and the AI analogy remains untested. Integración/votación: Three-judge panel: Preecha Chalermwanich, Saman Wetwinij and Sangwian Rattanamung (Thai transliteration); individual votes and separate opinions were not published.
- Fuente
- Referencia
- Supreme Court Judgment 2750/2537 — Royal Institute Dictionary
- Enlace
- Consultar fuente
- Autoridad
- ThaiDeka reproduction identifying source as the Office/Division of Supreme Court Judicial Assistants
- Tipo
- national Supreme Court originality, source-origin and compilation analogue; not an AI case; decided under the repealed 1978 Act
- Localizador
- ThaiDeka headings ย่อสั้น (short digest), เนื้อหาคำพิพากษา (judgment text), and ข้อมูลฎีกา (metadata/coram); especially digest paragraphs on 1978 Act ss 4 and 12 and full-text paragraphs describing the dictionaries and remedies
- Verificación documentada
- Sí