Malaysia’s Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry (MITI) faces scrutiny after local creative agency, Current Media Group (CMG) alleged that MITI used its proposal for the Malaysia’s Pavilion at Expo 2025 Osaka, without credit or compensation [1]. While MITI has announced an internal investigation, the case raises important legal questions about ownership of pitched ideas, especially in public procurement.
From a legal standpoint, two main causes of action may arise in such scenarios: copyright infringement and breach of confidence.
Copyright Infringement
To establish copyright infringement, CMG must prove two key elements [2]:
1. Sufficient objective similarity. The Court will determine whether the similarities between the works are sufficiently extensive to suggest copying rather than coincidence, disregarding common or generic features.
In the case of The New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd & Anor v Admal Sdn Bhd [2013] 6 MLJ 405, the Court of Appeal held that although the concept behind the competition “NST Spell It Right” was copyrightable, since it was a compilation of widely available information, it lacked the originality to attract copyright.
Therefore, to claim copyright infringement, CMG’s work has to contain original features developed through its own effort and skill, and not general ideas commonly found in expo pavilions.
2. Causal connection. CMG’s proposal must be the source of MITI’s final work. In Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha (also known as ‘Honda Motor Co Ltd’) v MForce Bike Holdings Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 6 MLJ 594, the Court of Appeal recognised that prior access to the claimant’s work may establish a causal connection.
Here, CMG submitted its proposal directly to MITI, providing direct access. Coupled with the alleged similarities in MITI’s final pavilion concept, an inference of copying may arise.
The burden is then shifted to MITI to refute that MITI’s final work was an independent creation.
Breach of Confidence
CMG claims that MITI circulated its material to third parties during an open tender. If proven, this may amount to a breach of confidence, which protects confidential information or trade secrets from unauthorised use or disclosure.
To succeed, CMG must prove three elements of the materials [3]:
1. Necessary quality of confidence. In Wade v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2014] EWHC 634 (Ch), the court held that a pitch deck, despite not fully worked-out, may be confidential if it contains concrete ideas that are capable of forming the basis of a project.
CMG’s proposal appears to contain detailed concept, theme, narrative and architectural direction, specifically developed for Expo 2025 over a period of eight months. If it meets the copyright threshold, it is also likely to qualify as confidential, as the proposal would be original and not made public before.
2. The materials were imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence. In Wade, the Court noted that pitch settings imply understanding that ideas submitted are not to be used freely.
CMG has revealed that it submitted its proposal to MITI with the purpose of being considered for appointment (in fact allegedly under an assurance of being formally appointed later). Such context imports an obligation of confidence: that the materials were shared for evaluation, not for free use or dissemination.
3. Unauthorised use to CMG’s detriment. If proven that MITI had circulated CMG’s materials for open tender without consent, such conduct could amount to unauthorised use of information, resulting in CMG’s loss of control and recognition over its creative work.
The law does not protect ideas alone, but ideas which have been reduced to original work through sufficient effort [4]. Therefore, creative work submitted in good faith must not be exploited. Government bodies, above all, should lead by respecting intellectual property and fair dealing. Treating pitches like free-for-all resources risks not only legal liability, but also public trust in public procurement.
[1] https://www.therakyatpost.com/news/2025/04/25/claim-emerges-of-miti-stealing-ideas-for-expo-2025-osaka/
[2] Mohd Syamsul Md Yusof & Ors. v. Elias Idris [2019] 7 CLH 560, Federal Court.
[3] Coco v A.N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41.
[4] Section 7, Copyright Act 1987.
About the Author
Lee Jia Vin is a Legal Associate at XK Law, bringing a wealth of experience across a diverse spectrum of legal matters. Her expertise spans corporate disputes, industrial relations litigation, adjudication claims, and criminal cases. Jia Vin is committed to maintaining a balanced lifestyle, engaging in activities such as yoga, hiking, swimming, and playing ultimate frisbee to support her well-being.
