Source: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com.es/2018/
Timestamp: 2018-03-18 09:52:34
Document Index: 783567511

Matched Legal Cases: ['sui generis', 'sui generis', 'sui generis', 'sui generis', 'sui generis', 'sui generis', 'sui generis', 'sui generis', 'sui generis']

(Probably) *Not* a
database right-inspired band
The Database Directive has been around for a while, yet it is arguable that one of its crucial aspects, this being the sui generis (database) right, has remained somewhat ambiguous.
Katfriend David Serras Pereira (SPAutores) reports on a recent SPanish decision concerning indeed the sui generis right.
“A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away....
The Database Directive was adopted in March 1996, and not so often we hear of national landmark decisions based on the national laws implementing the Directive, giving us clues on the best practices and guidance when dealing with databases cases.
Quoting the IPKat’s last post (Technomed v Bluecrest) covering national “newsfeed” on this topic (here) “Database right is an infrequent visitor to the IPKat's pages”!
Now, again, two medical industry players, offer reasons to highlight it again!
How many times as the Article 7 sui generis right infringement resulted in EUR 5 million fine? None? Not anymore, Spanish judges have decided.
In a very recent decision the Spanish Supreme Court (here) has dismissed an appeal for annulment and upheld the judgments issued by the lower courts which imposed a fine of EUR 5 million on IMS Health to be paid to Infonis for having copied the latter’s database.
This decision puts an end to this case and shows a good and interesting approach to the sui generis right by Spanish judges in what looks like a landmark decision, especially if one takes into account the (ok… I’m tempted to use it here) “sui generis” amount of the damage award related to the “sui generis” right and the interesting evidence considered by the court.
“Member States shall provide for a right for the maker of a database which shows that there has been qualitatively and/or quantitatively a substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents to prevent extraction and/or re-utilization of the whole or of a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively, of the contents of that database.”
Spain has transposed this provision by means of Articles 133 - 137 of Real Decreto Legislativo 1/1996, de 12 de abril (here).
In 2010, Infonis (a Spanish company) sued IMS Health claiming that the latter had infringed its database rights. Basically, Infonis claimed that ZBSales, its pharmaceutical marketing database, had been copied by IMS Health and resulted in the creation of a competing and suspiciously similar database (Sanibricks),
INFONIS devoted three years to the making of ZBSales (a database tracing the health map of all the Spanish autonomous communities) which was presented to the pharmaceutical market in 2006. In the same year, a 10-year marketing agreement was also reached between Infonis and IMS Health. Yet 3 months later IMS was said to have put an end the agreement and extracted the data contained in Infonis database.
Both at first instance and in appeal the claimant succeeded. Both courts found that INFONIS had made a substantial investment in connection with its database. What is interesting is also the evidence relied upon to prove infringement of the database right …
Just don’t copycat the errors… they said…
So, speaking of evidence, how have the courts reached the conclusion that there had been copying of the ZBSales database?
By comparing the two databases (and analyzing more than 20.000 items as reported here) it was found that the Sanibricks database included the same errors of of the ZB Sales these being errors in the names of the basic health zones.
It was found that it would very strange (impossible) that the exact same errors present on the claimant database, would be also present in the database created by IMS Health.
This is an interesting decision, not only in terms of the uncommon amount of the awarded damages for the infringement of this “sui generis” right, but in understanding how evidence (regarding the infringement, and not the other requirements, eg effort, investment…etc…) should be gathered and produced in similar cases.
Above all, this decision is proof that the database sui generis right is applicable, not “dead lex”, and that the protection of the efforts and investment carried out by undertakings in such cases has now one more favorable decision strenghtening its effectiveness.”
Posted by Eleonora Rosati at 16:25:00 0 comments
Labels: David Serras Pereira, medical databases, Spain, sui generis right
Infighting at Nigeria’s main collecting society – Powers of the sector regulator
Katfriend and AfroIP blogger Chijioke Ifeoma Okorie returns on a topic that has been increasingly at the centre of attention recently: collective rights management and collecting societies in Nigeria.
Here’s what Chijioke Ifeoma writes:
“At a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Copyright Society of Nigeria (COSON) held on 7th December 2017, COSON’s founding Chairman (Mr. Tony Okoroji) was removed and one of the founding Directors, Mr. Efe Omoregbe, appointed in his stead. A General Meeting involving COSON’s members (General Assembly) was held on 19th December 2017 and the members who attended the meeting reinstated Mr. Tony Okoroji as Chairman and appointed other Board members. Earlier this month, COSON instituted Suit No ID/4827/GCMW18 seeking inter alia an injunction restraining Mr. Omoregbe from parading himself as Chairman of the Society.
This post reviews the line of events from the perspective of the role of the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC), the sector regulator for COSON and other collecting societies in Nigeria.
The issue here is a dispute between members of the COSON Board and one that concerns the internal workings of COSON. There are no specific provisions in COSON’s Memorandum and Articles of Association regarding disputes arising in relation to the position of COSON Chairman. However, general provisions pertaining to the position of COSON Chairman and the powers of the General Assembly may be found in Articles 17, 36, 44 and 61 of COSON’s Memorandum and Articles of Association. COSON’s Memorandum and Articles may be obtained from the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) or from COSON itself.
Article 17 is to the effect that the chairman of the management board is to preside as chairman at every general meeting of COSON. Article 36 stipulates that the business of COSON is to be managed by the Management Board and no regulation made by the COSON General Assembly is to invalidate the actions of the Board. Article 44 gives the Management Board to elect the COSON Chairman from amongst its director members and to determine the period for which such chairman is to hold office
Where there is a dispute regarding which director shall be Chairman of the society, such dispute is one that exists between members of COSON and is within the purview of the NCC’s powers as sector regulator. This is because, by virtue of Regulation 2(3)(iii) of the Copyright (Collective Management Organisations) Regulations 2007 (CMO Regulations) and Article 61 of COSON’s memorandum and articles of association, every member of the Management Board excluding the General Manager, is or must be a member of COSON itself.
Powers of NCC in relation to the issues at stake
In relation to disputes between members and/or disputes regarding the Management Board, the NCC may by virtue of the CMO Regulations:
(a) Order an audit of the accounts of the collecting society [Regulation 10].
(b) revoke the licence of a collecting society [Regulations 3 and 20(2)].
(c) serve a written caution to a collecting society [Regulation 20(1)].
(d) suspend the licence of a collecting society for 3 months [Regulation 20(2)].
(e) set up a dispute resolution panel [Regulation 15].
Given the nature of the issues as described in the preceding paragraphs, appropriate provisions exist within the CMO Regulations that indicate that the NCC is aware of the resolutions reached at the various meetings. In terms of Regulation 2(3)(vi) of the CMO Regulations, Article 35 of COSON’s memorandum and articles of association provide for the NCC to have its representative as a non-voting member of the Management Board. Further, COSON is required to furnish the NCC with a report of all its meetings by virtue of Regulation 9 of the CMO Regulations. In the circumstances, a dispute regarding powers exercised at the meetings of COSON’s management board and general assembly respectively is within the regulatory competence of the NCC and falls squarely within the purview” of the CMO Regulations.
Yes ... there might be
more fun things to collect than royalties
The NCC is clearly in a position to act and issue a written directive capable of quelling the storm at COSON. The NCC has clear powers to appoint an auditor to audit the account of COSON especially in view of the allegations of financial impropriety levied against the Chairman of the Board. It was present at these contentious meetings and even if it was absent, it has access to report of these meetings. The NCC’s adjudicatory powers in this instance can only be activated by a member of the management board presenting the Chairmanship dispute before the NCC. However, the constitution of a panel to resolve such dispute is at the discretion of the Director-General of the NCC by virtue of Rule 6 of the Copyright (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules 2007.
Accordingly, the NCC has the powers to issue appropriate directives regarding the conduct of COSON’s management board and the general assembly. Indeed, there is no point sitting in at meetings and receiving report of meetings if the NCC cannot take steps to address issues that threaten the existence and purpose of COSON.
Presently, COSON’s funds that should serve the financial interests of its members are being depleted in terms of lawyers’ fees and its image as a fair and transparent collecting society is gradually being eroded.
Up till April 2017 when Nigeria’s Attorney-General exercised his powers to approve the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Musical Copyright Society of Nigeria (MCSN) and direct the issuance of a CMO licence to MCSN, COSON has operated as a sole collecting society approved for musical works and sound recordings in Nigeria. Indeed, despite several suits instituted regarding the status and powers of MCSN, the courts have consistently ruled that without due appointment and registration by the sector regulator, the NCC, COSON remained the only collecting society available to music copyright owners (for membership) and music copyright users (for music licences) in Nigeria. It is therefore without doubt that COSON wields considerable powers in ensuring adequate remuneration to music copyright owners regarding the use of their protected works.
In the circumstances, it is important that the internal administration of COSON continue to operate smoothly like a well-oiled engine. The NCC can exercise its powers to ensure the achievement of this objective and save COSON from imploding.”
Posted by Eleonora Rosati at 16:24:00 0 comments
Labels: Chijioke Ifeoma Okorie, collecting societies, collective rights management, nigeria