Propiedad intelectual Formación en PI Respeto por la PI Divulgación de la PI La PI para... La PI y… La PI en… Información sobre patentes y tecnología Información sobre marcas Información sobre diseños industriales Información sobre las indicaciones geográficas Información sobre las variedades vegetales (UPOV) Leyes, tratados y sentencias de PI Recursos de PI Informes sobre PI Protección por patente Protección de las marcas Protección de diseños industriales Protección de las indicaciones geográficas Protección de las variedades vegetales (UPOV) Solución de controversias en materia de PI Soluciones operativas para las oficinas de PI Pagar por servicios de PI Negociación y toma de decisiones Cooperación para el desarrollo Apoyo a la innovación Colaboraciones público-privadas Herramientas y servicios de IA La Organización Trabajar con la OMPI Rendición de cuentas Patentes Marcas Diseños industriales Indicaciones geográficas Derecho de autor Secretos comerciales Academia de la OMPI Talleres y seminarios Observancia de la PI WIPO ALERT Sensibilizar Día Mundial de la PI Revista de la OMPI Casos prácticos y casos de éxito Novedades sobre la PI Premios de la OMPI Empresas Universidades Pueblos indígenas Judicatura Recursos genéticos, conocimientos tradicionales y expresiones culturales tradicionales Economía Financiación Activos intangibles Igualdad de género Salud mundial Cambio climático Política de competencia Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible Tecnologías de vanguardia Aplicaciones móviles Deportes Turismo PATENTSCOPE Análisis de patentes Clasificación Internacional de Patentes ARDI - Investigación para la innovación ASPI - Información especializada sobre patentes Base Mundial de Datos sobre Marcas Madrid Monitor Base de datos Artículo 6ter Express Clasificación de Niza Clasificación de Viena Base Mundial de Datos sobre Dibujos y Modelos Boletín de Dibujos y Modelos Internacionales Base de datos Hague Express Clasificación de Locarno Base de datos Lisbon Express Base Mundial de Datos sobre Marcas para indicaciones geográficas Base de datos de variedades vegetales PLUTO Base de datos GENIE Tratados administrados por la OMPI WIPO Lex: leyes, tratados y sentencias de PI Normas técnicas de la OMPI Estadísticas de PI WIPO Pearl (terminología) Publicaciones de la OMPI Perfiles nacionales sobre PI Centro de Conocimiento de la OMPI Informes de la OMPI sobre tendencias tecnológicas Índice Mundial de Innovación Informe mundial sobre la propiedad intelectual PCT - El sistema internacional de patentes ePCT Budapest - El Sistema internacional de depósito de microorganismos Madrid - El sistema internacional de marcas eMadrid Artículo 6ter (escudos de armas, banderas, emblemas de Estado) La Haya - Sistema internacional de diseños eHague Lisboa - Sistema internacional de indicaciones geográficas eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediación Arbitraje Determinación de expertos Disputas sobre nombres de dominio Acceso centralizado a la búsqueda y el examen (CASE) Servicio de acceso digital (DAS) WIPO Pay Cuenta corriente en la OMPI Asambleas de la OMPI Comités permanentes Calendario de reuniones WIPO Webcast Documentos oficiales de la OMPI Agenda para el Desarrollo Asistencia técnica Instituciones de formación en PI Apoyo para COVID-19 Estrategias nacionales de PI Asesoramiento sobre políticas y legislación Centro de cooperación Centros de apoyo a la tecnología y la innovación (CATI) Transferencia de tecnología Programa de Asistencia a los Inventores (PAI) WIPO GREEN PAT-INFORMED de la OMPI Consorcio de Libros Accesibles Consorcio de la OMPI para los Creadores WIPO Translate Conversión de voz a texto Asistente de clasificación Estados miembros Observadores Director general Actividades por unidad Oficinas en el exterior Ofertas de empleo Adquisiciones Resultados y presupuesto Información financiera Supervisión
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Leyes Tratados Sentencias Consultar por jurisdicción

Trinidad y Tabago

TT023-j

Atrás

CV 2015-01073

Around October 2013, Kevon Hart, a Director and songwriter employed by the claimant, composed a song titled “No Worries” (“the claimant’s work”). On or around October 20, 2013, the first defendant, who was a radio personality and professional music artist, received an email containing the claimant’s work from the producer of its sound recording. Following his review of the claimant’s work, the first defendant responded to the said email, stating, “yeah I like this, need a tweak but have vibes”.

The first defendant collaborated with Akeem “Preedy” Chance, a professional songwriter, in writing a song titled “No Worries”. The second defendant completed the music for the song, the first defendant completed the recording, and the work was released around November 14, 2014 (“the defendants’ work”), on which date the defendants’ work was sent via email to a disc jockey employed by the Third defendant’s radio station, 96.7 FM, with a cover stating that the song was written by the first defendant and Akeem “Preedy” Chance and that it was produced by the second defendant. The defendants’ work was also submitted to the Copyright Organisation of Trinidad and Tobago.

The claimant claimed that, in around October 2014, Mr. Hart heard a song titled “No Worries” that was published on YouTube and was being circulated on social networking sites. The claimant stated that this song had similar lyrical content to its work. Following this, a Pre-Action Protocol letter was issued on behalf of the claimant to the Third defendant. In view of that letter, the Third defendant ceased playing the defendant’s work on air.

In April, 2015, the claimant instituted an action against the defendants for an alleged copyright infringement of its work on the basis that:

The words “wine with no worries” used in the claimant’s song were unique; and

The way in which the words “no worries” were performed by the first defendant was similar to the way in which they were performed in the claimant’s work and that the said phrase and its rendition was a substantial part of the song.

The defendants counterclaimed, contending that when a Pre-Action Protocol letter was issued and consequently, the radio stations ceased playing the first defendant’s songs, he received fewer invitations to perform as a professional artist and as a result, he suffered loss.

In making its determination on the matter, the court considered the issues of whether there was a violation of the claimant’s copyright and whether either the claimant or the first and second defendants were entitled to damages.

The court found that there was and could be no original skill, labor or originality of thought associated with the words “wine with no worries” and it could not be said that the words originated with the claimant. Moreover, the court indicated that the said words were common within local parlance, formed an integral and entrenched part of the cultural fabric of Trinidad and Tobago society and were synonymous with the revelry and gaiety of Carnival, which, after all, is the season to “wine and to abandon all worries”. It was therefore the court’s view that no originality could be attributed to the words “wine with no worries” and it was not a unique literary expression that could attract copyright protection.

In examining the manner in which the words “no worries” were sung, the court considered the expert evidence of both parties and found that there were no substantial similarities between the claimant’s work and the defendants’ work, in relation to the lyrics, melody and/or the delivery of the respective performances with respect to how the words ‘no worries’ were sung. The court also found that it could not be said that the defendants took from the claimant’s work so much of what was pleasing to the ears of the target audience or that there was an unauthorized appropriation for which the defendants should account.

Further, on application of the test in Designer Guild Ltd. v Russell Williams Textiles [2001] 1 All ER 700, the court found that the defendants’ work was not the result of copying but was independently created. The court further found that, although the first defendant had access to the claimant’s work, he did not copy it, and that the second defendant had no knowledge of the existence of the claimant’s work at the relevant time.

In respect of the counterclaim, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish the requisite nexus between the receipt of the claimant’s pre-action protocol letter and the first defendant’s receipt of fewer invitations to perform, to justify an award of damages.

Although the claimant was not successful, the court applauded the efforts to seek judicial determination of important issues of IP protection, noting that greater appreciation, awareness and use of IP protection would allow afforded creators and innovators to harvest the fruits of their creativity.

Cases referred to:

Creagh v Hit and Run Publishing Ltd [2002] EWHC 2512;

Laureyssens v Zdia Group Inc., 964 F. 2d 131 (2d Cir. 1992);

Baigent and another v Random House Group Ltd. (2007) EWCA Civ 247;

Repp v Webber, 132 F. 3d 882, 889 (2d Cir. 1997);

Joel McDonald vt Kanye West, et al., 15-3489cv 2nd Cir. (October 7, 2016);

Designer Guild Ltd. v Russell Williams Textiles [2001] 1 All ER 700;

Coffey v. Warner/Chappel Music Ltd. [2005] EWCH 449 (Ch);

IPC Media Ltd. v Highbury Leisure Publishing Ltd. (No. 2) [2004] EWHC 2985 (Ch) (21 December 2004);

Other authorities referred to:

Copinger And Skone James On Copyright, 15th Ed. Vol. 1;

Halsbury’s Laws of England, Copyright (Volume 23 (2016)), paragraph 503;

Concession for the Operation of a Public Telecommunications Network and/or Provision of Public Telecommunications of Broadcasting Services, regulation D33.