Wakilii

Obsessions Company Ltd v Warid Telecom (Uganda) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 373 of 2010)

High Court · [2014] UGCOMMC 158 · 2014 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for copyright infringement and damages
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with damages, exemplary damages, permanent injunction, interest and costs; Defendant entitled to compensation from Third Party

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The court held that Obsessions Company Ltd owned copyright in five musical works and that Warid Telecom infringed those rights by using the songs as caller tunes without permission, downloaded 1,340 times in total. The defendant's use without licence constituted infringement under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 s.46(1) and amounted to unjust enrichment. The court awarded general damages of UGX 50,000,000 based on the fair royalty the plaintiff would have charged, plus exemplary damages of UGX 10,000,000 for continuing infringement after notice, and granted a permanent injunction.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with damages, exemplary damages, permanent injunction, interest and costs; Defendant entitled to compensation from Third Party

Facts

Obsessions Company Ltd, a music production company incorporated since 2004, authored and produced several songs including 'Feel Me', 'Mwekute', 'Wekume', 'Jukila', and 'Jump'. In 2008, Warid Telecom recorded several of these songs in their systems without permission and offered them for sale as caller tunes to customers. The defendant obtained the songs through DMark Company Ltd under a content provision agreement dated 11 August 2008, in which DMark warranted it had legal rights to the content. Evidence showed the defendant's site recorded 1,340 downloads of five songs: Mwekute (24 times), Wekume (848 times), Jukira (211 times), Feel Me (112 times), and Kalina (145 times) as at 13 October 2010. The plaintiff wrote to the defendant on 2 September 2010 about the infringement, but the defendant continued use until 13 October 2010. DMark could not prove it had acquired consent from the plaintiff and conceded early in proceedings to wishing to settle.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff is the owner or assignee of the copyright?
  2. Whether the Defendant infringed on the Plaintiff's copyright?
  3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any remedies?
  4. Whether the Defendant is entitled to be indemnified by the third party?

Orders

  • Declared that the Defendant is guilty of infringement of the Plaintiff's copyright.
  • Declared that the infringement and the resultant income by the Defendant amounted to unjust enrichment.
  • Permanent injunction against the Defendant, assignees and transferees restraining them from further acts of infringement of the Plaintiff's copyright.
  • General damages of UGX 50,000,000.
  • Exemplary damages of UGX 10,000,000.
  • Interest on general and exemplary damages at Court rate from date of judgment till payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit to the Plaintiff.
  • Defendant entitled to compensation by the Third Party.

Rules and key headnotes

Copyright — Ownership — Evidence required
Ownership of copyright in artistic works may be established through oral evidence from directors of the copyright-holding company, particularly where such evidence remains undisturbed in cross-examination and is confirmed by adverse parties.
Copyright — Infringement — Elements
Under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 s.46(1), copyright is infringed by any person who without a valid transfer, licence, assignment or other authorization deals with any work or performance contrary to its permitted free use.
Unjust Enrichment — Copyright infringement
Where a defendant makes money by using a plaintiff's intellectual property without permission, this amounts to unjust enrichment, particularly where value is added to the defendant's product and sales increase as a result.
Copyright infringement — Measure of damages
The measure of damages for copyright infringement is the depreciation caused to the value of the copyright as a chose in action. Where the defendant has dealt with the plaintiff's copyright as if under licence, the defendant ought to pay damages equivalent to the fair fee or royalty which would have been charged for a licence to do the acts done.
Exemplary damages — When awarded in copyright cases
Exemplary damages may be awarded where the defendant's conduct was calculated to procure financial benefit at the expense of the plaintiff, particularly where the infringer continues use after being informed of the infringement and where intellectual property rights are not well observed generally.
Special damages — Proof required
Special damages must not only be specifically pleaded but must also be strictly proved. Where no evidence of actual money lost is presented, special damages will not be awarded.
Copyright — Injunction in infringement cases
In cases of copyright infringement, an injunction will issue even where damages are not proved. Once infringement is established, a permanent injunction restraining further acts of infringement is appropriate.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (4)

  • Wrotham Park Estate Company v Parkside Homes Ltd [1974] 2 All ER 321
  • Rookes v Bernard [1964] AC 1129
  • Stella Atal v Ann Abels Kiruta (HCCS 967 of 2004)
  • Jivanji v Sanyo Co. Ltd (2003) EA 84

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Obsessions Company Ltd v Warid Telecom (Uganda) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 373 of 2010) [2014] UGCommC 158 (20 November 2014)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.