关于知识产权 知识产权培训 树立尊重知识产权的风尚 知识产权外联 部门知识产权 知识产权和热点议题 特定领域知识产权 专利和技术信息 商标信息 工业品外观设计信息 地理标志信息 植物品种信息(UPOV) 知识产权法律、条约和判决 知识产权资源 知识产权报告 专利保护 商标保护 工业品外观设计保护 地理标志保护 植物品种保护(UPOV) 知识产权争议解决 知识产权局业务解决方案 知识产权服务缴费 谈判与决策 发展合作 创新支持 公私伙伴关系 人工智能工具和服务 组织简介 与产权组织合作 问责制 专利 商标 工业品外观设计 地理标志 版权 商业秘密 WIPO学院 讲习班和研讨会 知识产权执法 WIPO ALERT 宣传 世界知识产权日 WIPO杂志 案例研究和成功故事 知识产权新闻 产权组织奖 企业 高校 土著人民 司法机构 遗传资源、传统知识和传统文化表现形式 经济学 金融 无形资产 性别平等 全球卫生 气候变化 竞争政策 可持续发展目标 前沿技术 移动应用 体育 旅游 PATENTSCOPE 专利分析 国际专利分类 ARDI - 研究促进创新 ASPI - 专业化专利信息 全球品牌数据库 马德里监视器 Article 6ter Express数据库 尼斯分类 维也纳分类 全球外观设计数据库 国际外观设计公报 Hague Express数据库 洛迦诺分类 Lisbon Express数据库 全球品牌数据库地理标志信息 PLUTO植物品种数据库 GENIE数据库 产权组织管理的条约 WIPO Lex - 知识产权法律、条约和判决 产权组织标准 知识产权统计 WIPO Pearl(术语) 产权组织出版物 国家知识产权概况 产权组织知识中心 产权组织技术趋势 全球创新指数 世界知识产权报告 PCT - 国际专利体系 ePCT 布达佩斯 - 国际微生物保藏体系 马德里 - 国际商标体系 eMadrid 第六条之三(徽章、旗帜、国徽) 海牙 - 国际外观设计体系 eHague 里斯本 - 国际地理标志体系 eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange 调解 仲裁 专家裁决 域名争议 检索和审查集中式接入(CASE) 数字查询服务(DAS) WIPO Pay 产权组织往来账户 产权组织各大会 常设委员会 会议日历 WIPO Webcast 产权组织正式文件 发展议程 技术援助 知识产权培训机构 COVID-19支持 国家知识产权战略 政策和立法咨询 合作枢纽 技术与创新支持中心(TISC) 技术转移 发明人援助计划(IAP) WIPO GREEN 产权组织的PAT-INFORMED 无障碍图书联合会 产权组织服务创作者 WIPO Translate 语音转文字 分类助手 成员国 观察员 总干事 部门活动 驻外办事处 职位空缺 采购 成果和预算 财务报告 监督
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
法律 条约 判决 按管辖区浏览

特立尼达和多巴哥

TT005-j

返回

CV 2014-02732

The substantive claim concerns copyright infringement.

One of the main issues was whether the court ought to grant the claimant further time to itemize relevant particulars necessary to its claim. An application to strike out the claim form and statement of case was submitted by the defendant and additional time was requested by the claimant.

The claimant argued that it was the only entity in Trinidad and Tobago registered to license copyright work in respect of works of mas. They also claimed that they were assigned the licensing and collection of copyright in relation to works of mas on behalf of the National Carnival Development Foundation (NCDF). The defendant collected fees with regards to the works of mas, and the claimant contends they are entitled to the fees. It was further claimed that the defendants not only infringed the copyright of the claimant but were in breach of their statutory duty, as both defendants are corporate bodies established by an Act of Parliament.

The defense pleaded that the persons entitled to royalties for works of mas were already paid such and challenged the claimant’s right to claim royalties on behalf of members of the NCDF.

Particulars on the statement of claim were requested by the defendant but, according to the defense, were not adequately provided despite an order by the court to do so. As such, parts of the amended statement of case were struck out. The struck-out pleadings specifically concerned an essential element in establishing copyright infringement, i.e., whether the claimant has title to sue. Further, the defense pleaded that (a) the claimant has not identified the members of the NCDF who assigned their copyright in ‘works of mass’ to the claimant, (b) a description of the work that is allegedly protected under the Act was not identified, and (c) the claimant has not submitted the date, manner and extent of the alleged breach of the first defendant of each of the work allegedly protected.

The court held the view that sections of the statement of claim which were struck out should remain as so. Additionally, it decided that the claimant failed to provide submissions on any specific copyright work infringed with regards to the royalties collected and failed to particularize the extend of the breach, thereby hindering the court’s ability to take an account.

An order was made to strike out the claim owing to the claimant’s failure to comply with the court order and there being no cause of action pleaded in the statement of case. The court noted that the decision was not based on the merits of the case but simply non-compliance by the claimant of a court order and as such, a second action by the claimant should not raise any issue of abuse of process or res judicata.

Cases referred to: Copyright Music Organisation of Trinidad and Tobago v Columbus Communications Trinidad Limited CV2009-04722