What just happened?

PropertyGuru took rival 99.co to court.

Both are property listing portals, with PropertyGuru being Singapore’s largest property listing website.

The issue first started in April 2016, after PropertyGuru filed a Writ of Summons against 99.co.

PropertyGuru claimed that 99.co reproduced photos without permission on its site with the PropertyGuru logo visible.

How did the infringements occur?

Property agents use both sites to list properties.

The case centred around the use of a third-party platform, which property agents used to cross-post their listings on portals.

Some photos uploaded and edited on PropertyGuru by property agents ended up on 99.co, bearing PropertyGuru's watermark.

[related_story]

What is this strange outcome?

Both PropertyGuru and 99.co have claimed victory on March 9, 2018, following the High Court ruling by Justice Hoo Sheau Peng.

This was how PropertyGuru characterised the verdict as a victory for them:

And this was how 99.co characterised the verdict as a win on behalf of the Internet:

So who really won?

Based on mainstream media coverage, 99.co prevailed by putting up a credible defence.

Both The Straits Times and Channel News Asia reported in their headlines that the High Court dismissed PropertyGuru's claims that 99.co infringed its copyright.

However, when read in depth, the mainstream media articles characterised the issue as less of a matter of who won, but rather, who lost what.

So, who lost what?

What PropertyGuru did not win:

Justice Hoo said the copying, enlargement or resizing of an artistic work does not make the resulting image a copyrighted work. This is in reference to photos by property agents uploaded onto PropertyGuru's site after adjustments made to them.

These photos were first uploaded on the PropertyGuru website by property agents, and were edited to bear the PropertyGuru watermark.

But by using a third-party app, some of these photos were transferred to the 99.co website.

PropertyGuru's claims that 99.co had induced property agents to breach their contracts was also thrown out by the judge.

What 99.co did not win:

On the other hand, the judge ruled that 99.co had breached a 2015 settlement agreement.

Under this agreement, 99.co cannot substantially reproduce content found on PropertyGuru website, unless approved to do so. 99.co is also not allowed to put up any links on its website connecting users to PropertyGuru.

One listing with nine photographs was moved from PropertyGuru onto 99.co, and this was done by “substantially reproducing” the content.

The judge gave an injunction to restrain 99.co from continuing to breach the terms of the agreement by using the third-party service to do cross-posting.

99.co has 30 days to stop using the app.

PropertyGuru has been given the right to assess damages.

99.co's counterclaim that PropertyGuru had made groundless threats were also thrown out.

The judge also rejected 99.co’s claim that it had suffered losses as a result of the threat of the lawsuit.

"Apart from this assertion, no evidence has been produced to substantiate this claim," she said.

Background of case: