Thailand / Casos nacionales
Supreme Court Judgment 973/2551 — Paijit Punyapan v Royal Institute
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 973/2551 — Paijit Punyapan v Royal Institute
- Cita
- ฎีกา 973/2551; Supreme Court docket ทก.(ป)55/2547
- Tribunal
- Supreme Court of Thailand, Intellectual Property division
- Instancia
- última instancia
- Fechas
- year
- 2008
- Estado
- year-only-reporter
- Resultado
- Mixed merits holding: protection for the book as a whole, no copyright in the seven disputed definition components; the accessible digest does not publish the final remedial order.
- Resumen
- The book's independently researched and arranged commentary was protected, but the seven definitions drawn from statutes or pre-existing legal usage were not the claimant's copyright.
- Antecedentes
- The claimant wrote and arranged a book criticizing dictionary definitions through legal sources and commentary. The whole research and arrangement reflected his effort, but the seven disputed proposed definitions either reproduced statutory content or meanings already used and taught by the legal community.
- Historia procesal
- The accessible Supreme Court digest identifies the parties, Supreme Court docket and originating Central IP and International Trade Court, but omits a separate procedural narrative and final costs/order paragraph. No posture beyond review by the Supreme Court is asserted.
- Cuestión jurídica
- Whether the book as a whole and, separately, seven proposed legal definitions contained the claimant's own protected expression.
- Criterio
- The book's independently researched and arranged commentary was protected, but the seven definitions drawn from statutes or pre-existing legal usage were not the claimant's copyright.
- Fundamento decisivo
- Subsistence is granular: a larger work can be original while particular statutory, conventional or pre-existing components remain unprotected.
- Límites
- No AI tool or generated layer was involved. The case does not say that selection of any output is creative; it requires identifying what expression actually originated with the claimant.
- Relevancia
- doctrina-general
- Referencias relacionadas
- Peso del precedente
- Final Supreme Court authority with high guiding weight for separating protected human arrangement from unprotected components. Integración/votación: Three-judge panel: Kriangchai Chuengchaturaphit, Suwat Wattanahathai and Panyarat Wirayawanich (Thai transliteration); individual votes/separate opinions not published.
- Fuente
- Referencia
- Supreme Court Judgment 973/2551 — Paijit Punyapan v Royal Institute
- Enlace
- Consultar fuente
- Autoridad
- ThaiDeka reproduction identifying source as the Office/Division of Supreme Court Judicial Assistants
- Tipo
- national granular-expression and independent-creation analogue; not an AI case
- Localizador
- ThaiDeka ย่อสั้น paras 1-5 on s 4, the whole book and the seven definitions; ข้อมูลฎีกา docket, parties, coram and source
- Verificación documentada
- Sí