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

TT022-j

返回

CV 2009-04722

Summary judgment for the claimant with various Orders including:

an Order for an inquiry as to the damages for infringement of copyright by the unauthorized transmission by the defendant of the musical works;

an Order for payment of all sums found due upon taking such inquiries or account, together with interest; and

an Order that the defendant pay the costs of the application for summary judgment.

The claimant, Copyright Music Organisation of Trinidad and Tobago (COTT), is a collective rights management organization for musical works. Its members assigned to it various rights, including the sole right to broadcast and transmit or authorize the broadcast and transmission of their musical works in Trinidad and Tobago. Also assigned to the claimant were performing rights of works created and protected in foreign territories.

From January 5, 2006, the defendant, transmitted musical works in respect of which the claimant had been assigned certain rights, through its cable television programs on a daily basis.

In December 2009, the claimant commenced proceedings against the defendant for the infringement of copyright in the musical works in its repertoire and following the filing of the Defense, applied for summary judgment on the basis that the defendant failed to set out its case as required by Rule 10.5 of the Civil Proceedings Rules 1998 and, as a result, had no realistic prospect of success on its defense to the claim.

In making its determination on the matter, the court considered whether the defendant had a realistic prospect of success in its Defense. The court found that central to this issue was whether the Defense was properly pleaded in accordance with the reasoning of Mendonca JA in M.I.5 Investigations Ltd. v. Centurion Protective Agency Ltd., Civ. App. No. 244 of 2008. The court found that the statement of case sufficiently established the claimant as the exclusive licensee of musical works and/or that the claimant was a licensing body within the meaning of the Copyright Act. The court also found, regarding the matter of infringement of the claimant’s copyright, that the Defense amounted to an admission of the allegations set out in the claimant’s statement of case and otherwise amounted to a bare denial, general denial or neither admission nor denial of the allegations made by the claimant.

Further, the court found that the defendant failed to discharge its burden of proving that it had a real prospect of success in defending the matter or that there was a compelling reason for a trial of the matter, particularly as there was “absolutely no documentary evidence of any kind whatsoever annexed or referred to in the defence”. The court further found that this was very telling both as to the non-existence of a defense to the claim of infringement, and to the admission of copyright infringement contained in the Defense.

Moreover, considering para. 34.13 of Blackstone’s Civil Practice 2004, the court held that the defendant failed to set up a substantive defense, deny the facts supporting the claimant’s cause of action and present further facts answering the claimant’s cause of action, as a result of which the defendant did not have a real prospect of success in the matter.

In view of its findings, the court granted summary judgment for the claimant with various Orders including:

an Order for an inquiry as to the damages for infringement of copyright by the unauthorized transmission by the defendant of the musical works;

an Order for payment of all sums found due upon taking such inquiries or account, together with interest; and

an Order that the defendant pay the costs of the application for summary judgment.

Cases referred to:

Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company and Bank of England No. 3 [2001] UKHL 16;

Alfa Telecom Turkey Limited v Cukurova Finance International Limited and Cukurova Holdings, HCVAP 2009/ 001at [21];

Bank of Bermuda Ltd v Pentium, Civil Appeal No 14 of 2003 BVI;

Western United Credit Union Co-operative Society Ltd. v Corrine Ammon, Civil Appeal No. 103 of 2006;

Western United Credit Union Co-operative Society Ltd. v Corrine Ammon, Civil Appeal No. 103 of 2006;

Civil Procedure Rules (United Kingdom);

Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91, 92;

Toprise Fashions Ltd. v Nik Nak Clothing Co. Ltd; Nik Nak (1) Ltd, Anjum Ahmed [2009] EWHC 1333 (Comm) at [16];

Federal Republic of Nigeria v Santalina Investment Corp. [2007] EWHC 437 (CH);

ED & F Man Liquid Products v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472 at [8];

Royal Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond (No. 5) [2001] EWCA Civ. 550;

Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd. v Bolton Pharmaceutical Co., 100 Ltd. [2007] FSC 63;

M.I.5 Investigations Ltd. v. Centurion Protective Agency Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 244 of 2008;

Jacob and Ors v Millennium Development Corp. Ltd., CV. No. 2007-1668;

Odyssey Television Network Inc. v Triantafillos TT Triantafillou [2004] F.C.J. No. 632, 2004 FC 532 (F.C.);

Inhesion Industrial Co. v Anglo Canadian Mercantile Co. [2000] F.C.J. No. 491 (T.D.) (QL).

Other authorities referred to:

David Bean’s Injunctions, 10th ed. at para. 1:04.

Commercial Litigation: Pre-Emptive Remedies. International Ed. 2005, para. A6-164;