ترينيداد وتوباغو

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