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

TT023-j

返回

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.