About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships AI Tools & Services The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Classification Assistant Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

United Republic of Tanzania

TZ029-j

Back

RSA Limited v HansPaul Automechs Limited and another, Commercial Case No. 160 of 2014, High Court of Tanzania, Commercial Division at Dar es Salaam

RSA Limited v HansPaul Automechs Limited and another, Commercial Case No. 160 of 2014, High Court of Tanzania, Commercial Division at Dar es Salaam

Songoro, J.

Date of Judgment: April 20, 2016

Facts

The plaintiff, an engineering company selling safari cars converted from Land Cruiser and Nissan car bodies, claims that the defendants infringed its copyright by using its engineering drawings to make and sell similar cars, causing damages to the plaintiff’s business. The plaintiff sought a perpetual injunction, specific damages and general damages for deliberate copyright infringement.

Holdings

(i) For a work to be protected as a copyright, under section 5 of the Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act [Cap. 218 R.E. 2002], the plaintiff has to prove that the work is original that the plaintiff is the creator. This can be done via a written notice on each copy of the copyrighted work. In the absence of sufficient notice, the aforementioned section enables the court to determine a finding of copyright in the work at dispute.

(ii) A written notice or any other form of notice like a sign "on the works itself stating (1) "the name of the original owner”, (2) that copyright exists on the work (3) restriction of the copyright on the works is sufficient proof under section 5 of the Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act [Cap. 218 R.E. 2002] that the original owner has a subsisting copyright on his works.

(iii) The "commercial practice" followed by authors, manufacturers, engineers and others of inserting notices or signs of copyright on their works, ensures order and fairness in the copyright claim regimes, and has been adopted by many, to the extent that, the practices of notices on works form part of the unwritten rules.

(iv) Visual appearance alone may not be conclusive proof of infringement of copyright where the drawings and objects look similar.

Decision

(i) In the absence of any notice on the works itself or credible evidence from the works itself the Court has no legal basis of finding that the plaintiff is the original owner of the drawings and designs or that copyright subsists on drawings and designs.

The visual appearance of the cars was not conclusive. Although the cars looked similar, the plaintiff was bound to bring credible evidence on the analysis of parts, and drawings supplied by both parties to prove a claim of copyright infringement. The plaintiff’s and the defendant’s models of convertible cars similar visual appearance was not caused by the use of the same drawings, but because the models of cars were the same.