À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Respect de la propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé Outils et services en matière d’intelligence artificielle L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Application des droits de propriété intellectuelle WIPO ALERT Sensibilisation Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Financement Actifs incorporels Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions WIPO Webcast Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Assistant de classification États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Lois Traités Jugements Recherche par ressort juridique

Trinité-et-Tobago

TT023-j

Retour

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.