99.co and PropertyGuru each claim victory in copyright and contract dispute

The modern Supreme Court of Singapore (L) and the Old Supreme Court Building (R) / Photo credit: Socksiong / Wikimedia Commons

Online property portal 99.co did not commit copyright infringement when agents cross-posted listings from rival site PropertyGuru, the Singapore Supreme Court ruled today.

However, the court judged that 99.co had partially breached an earlier settlement agreement it entered into with its competitor.

In its lawsuit filed in April 2016, PropertyGuru alleged that 99.co had:

• Breached a settlement agreement that both parties entered into in September 2015.
• Induced third-party property agents to breach PropertyGuru’s terms of use.
• Infringed copyright by reproducing watermarked photos from PropertyGuru on its site.

99.co’s initial responses to these allegations claimed that:

• End users (i.e., third-party property agents) were the ones who reproduced content that allegedly belongs to PropertyGuru.
• It was unaware of PropertyGuru’s terms of use for property agents, and therefore lacked the knowledge and intention to induce PropertyGuru’s users to violate its policies.
• Property agents are merely exercising their own copyright by cross-posting content from PropertyGuru to 99.co using third-party software.

The third-party software in question is an app called Xpressor, which allows agents to cross-post property listings on different sites.

99.co also accused PropertyGuru of making groundless threats of legal proceedings relating to its copyright infringement claims.

See: PropertyGuru is taking 99.co to court over copyright infringement and more

In a 52-page judgment released today, the court found that 99.co partially breached the terms of the settlement agreement it entered into with PropertyGuru in September 2015. The breach related to 99.co’s provision of a service to real estate agents that could lift their listings from PropertyGuru’s site and re-post them on 99.co.

The court ruled that PropertyGuru could proceed with assessing the amount of damages it believes it is owed from 99.co’s breach of contract. It also granted a injunction against 99.co to ensure it ceases the cross-posting service within the next 30 days.

It has been a gruesome, expensive and time consuming journey – one that no startup should have to endure.

With regards to PropertyGuru’s two other allegations – that 99.co had infringed its copyright and had induced estate agents to violate its terms of use – the court sided with 99.co, dismissing PropertyGuru’s claims.

‘Priority’ given to PropertyGuru cross-postings