Having found that the respondent had infringed the

This preview shows page 66 - 69 out of 197 pages.

Having found that the Respondent had infringed the Applicant’s copyright, the conclusion was clear that any goods bearing reproduction or adaptation of the Applicant’s copyright works, which is in the possession or under the control of the Respondent, were counterfeit goods, and should be delivered-up. The court granted the relief sought by the Applicants. The claimant must prove: Ø ownership of the copyright in the articles for which protection is being claimed; Ø that defendant imported the articles in issue for a purpose other than own private or domestic use or distributed articles; Ø To such an extent that he was prejudicially affected; Ø To the defendant’s knowledge; the making of articles in issue either:
Constituted an infringement of the claimant’s copyright or Would have constituted an infringement if articles had been made in Namibia. Ø Claimant had no license from owner to do what they did. It should be noted that section 29(2) only applies if: to such person's knowledge the making of that article constituted an infringement of that copyright or; it would have constituted such an infringement had that article been made in Namibia; What if they had no ‘’knowledge’’ of possible infringement? Can ignorance be an excuse? ‘’Knowledge’’ Means- notice of facts such as would suggest to a reasonable man that a breach of Copyright law was being committed. The court must then hypothetically take the imported article as though it were made in Namibia by the person who made it, if such a person would have made it here w/o infringing copyright, then any other person who imports article into the country and sells w/o license infringes copyright. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Another v Anthony Black Films 1982 (3) SA 582 BRIEF FACTS: The respondent bought video cassette copies of applicant’s film in England from second applicant. The second applicant was a registered manufacturer and made videos lawfully. The Respondent sold copies in Case study 64
Unit 10 Sources of Intellectual Property law in Namibia SA. The Applicant sought to interdict respondent from importing, selling or letting videos. It alleged that respondent’s conduct was considerably reducing the marketable value of videos in SA and brought an action for infringement of s23(2) of the Copyright Act (RSA Act). The court ruled that that the importation of video cassettes did not constitute an infringement of the copyright in question. The students MUST read case in full to understanding the reasons for judgement. Infringement of the copyright in a literary or musical work Shall be infringed by a person who permits a place of public entertainment to be used for a performance in public of the work, where the performance constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture