This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2024 WIPO IP Judges Forum.
Session 5
Supreme Court of Jordan [2018]: Case No. 621-2018
Date of judgment: May 1, 2018
Issuing authority: Supreme Court
Level of the issuing authority: Final Instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Commercial)
Subject matter: Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights)
Plaintiff: M.R.A.A.SH
Defendant: The Jordanian Company (…) Owner of the trade name J.G.
Keywords: infringement, copyright exceptions, consent from author
Basic facts: M.R.A.A.SH (Plaintiff) filed lawsuit No. (610/2009) at the North Amman Court of First Instance against a Jordanian company, the owner of the trade name J.G. (Defendant), seeking compensation for malfunctions, damages, and loss of profits. The Plaintiff, a renowned reciter at the Al-Aqsa and Ibrahimi Mosques, claimed ownership of a copyrighted work titled High Quality Quran Recitations, which was registered with the National Library under deposit number (472/3/2006). The Defendant, a private company registered in 2003, distributed over 60,000 CDs during Ramadan, containing recitations performed by two reciters, including the Plaintiff, without an agreement on economic rights. The CDs also featured advertisements from seven sponsors.
The Plaintiff issued a legal notice (No. 13509/2009) demanding fair compensation for the unauthorized distribution of his work and the inclusion of advertisements on the CDs. He sought compensation for the damage caused by distributing more than 60,000 copies without his consent.
In the first instance, the lower court considered there was copyright infringement. The Defendant appealed the decision.
Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court's decision, requiring the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff 18,000 Jordanian dinars, plus fees, expenses, and 750 dinars in attorney's fees. The Supreme Court found that the Defendant's distribution of the CDs constituted copyright infringement, as the Plaintiff is the sole right holder entitled to license and financially exploit his work under Articles 13(a) and 23 of the Copyright and Neighboring Rights Protection Law No. 22 of 1992.
The Supreme Court rejected the Defendant's argument that its actions fell within the exceptions stipulated in Article 17 of the Copyright Protection Law, which allows the use of published works without the author's permission under certain conditions, provided that such use does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work or cause unjustified harm to the author's legitimate interests. The Supreme Court concluded that distributing over 55,000 CDs did not qualify for these exceptions and thus constituted an infringement requiring compensation.
Relevant holdings in relation to Copyright: The Plaintiff presented evidence, including a cassette tape and two laser disks, proving his ownership of the recitation work titled Quran of Al-Aqsa Mosque, registered with the National Library. He also submitted a legal notice (No. 13509/2009) demanding compensation for the unauthorized distribution of 60,000 CDs by the Defendant, which did not indicate any consent to copy or distribute the work. The Supreme Court found that the Defendant's distribution of the CDs without a written agreement on the financial terms violated Articles 13(a) and 23 of the Copyright and Neighboring Rights Law, which require written consent for the exploitation of copyrighted works.
The Supreme Court also rejected the Defendant's claim that a legal notice was necessary before filing the lawsuit, noting that the Copyright Law does not require such a notice. The Supreme Court upheld the expert report's assessment, which estimated the profit margin from the distribution at 35 piasters per CD, calculating the total profit at 19,250 dinars. Since the lower court awarded 18,000 dinars, and the Defendant did not appeal this amount, the judgment was deemed consistent with the law.
The Supreme Court further rejected the Defendant's claim that the distribution was non-commercial and lacked intent to infringe, concluding that distributing the CDs without the Plaintiff's written consent, regardless of the Defendant's intent, made them liable for compensation.
Relevant legislation:
· Copyright and Neighboring Rights Law No. (22 of 1992)