The plaintiffs created cards and programs for horse racing and other race meetings in Trinidad and Tobago and the United Kingdom. An agent of the first defendant attempted to copy race cards or programs of the third plaintiff at a business establishment and the defendants displayed broadcast information emanating from the first plaintiff on television monitors at the defendants’ business places.
The plaintiffs initiated legal proceedings against the defendants for an interlocutory injunction to restrain them from infringing and/or further infringing copyright in the plaintiffs’ race cards and programs.
In making its determination, the court considered, firstly, whether a race program could be considered a literary work to bring it within the ambit of the Copyright Act 1985 (“the Act”) and, secondly, the requirements for an original idea to become subject to copyright. The court also considered whether damages would be an appropriate remedy and the defendant’s ability to pay.
The court examined Ascot Jockey Club v Simons (1968) 64 W.R. 411, in which it was held that an information sheet for horse races called for labor, skill and judgment in its production and met the test of an original literary work, although said information sheet was a mere arrangement of material. Applying the principle laid down in that case, the court held that the race program was an arrangement of information which could be classified as a literary work under Section 6(1) of the Act.
With respect to the second issue considered, the court found that an original idea would not be protected unless it was expressed as a literary work within the meaning of the Act and that, further, such expression would not grant the owner a monopoly over the original idea, as a result of which copyright could arise in a later work derived from the expression of the original idea, provided that (taken as a whole) the later work was created with sufficient further independent skill, useful labor, knowledge, taste or judgment.
Moreover, the court found that damages would be adequate to compensate the plaintiffs for any loss of profit arising from Pool Operators withdrawing their patronage from the Betting and Levy Board as a result of any infringing acts of the defendants, and that there was no evidence to show that the defendants could not pay such damages. However, the court considered that it would be more difficult to quantify loss to the claimant’s goodwill as a result of the actions of the defendants.
Finally, the court considered that there was a real possibility of injustice being caused by a ruling in favor of either party, but that the evidence, authorities, justice of the situation and balance of convenience lay with the plaintiffs, on the basis of which the court granted the interlocutory injunction sought by the plaintiffs.
Cases referred to:
The Demerara Turf Club Ltd. v J. Pang (1963) 6 W.I.R. 177
Slick Brands (Clothing) Ltd. v Jolly Bird Ltd. (1975) Ch. D 470
The Quaker Oats Company v All Trades Distributors Ltd. (1981) Fleet Street Reports 09
American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd. (1975) A.C. 396
Other authorities referred to:
Halsbury’s Laws of England (6th Ed.), page 527, para b29
Halsbury’s Laws of England (6th Ed.), page 529, para 831
Halsbury’s Laws of England (6th Ed.), page 533, para 836
Modern Law of Copyright
Modern Law of Copyright (Butterworth) (1980), page 23, para 2.37
Modern Law of Copyright (Butterworth) (1980), page 33, para 2.55
Copinger and Skone James on Copyright (11th Ed.) Sweet and Maxwell