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

Trinidad and Tobago

TT011-j

Back

No. 1927 of 1983

An interim injunction was granted prohibiting the defendant from offering for sale or using any promotional material of the film “Gandhi” due to alleged copyright infringement. The injunction included an Anton Piller order whereby the defendants had to disclose the names and addresses of the persons or companies they received the items from. Counsel for the claimant sought to have the order extended until trial date, relying on the Copyright Act 1911 (the Act in effect for publications in Trinidad and Tobago) to argue that any work created in India is entitled to protection in Trinidad and Tobago.

While the Act intended to offer copyright protection in territories under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom (UK), India has not been part of the territories since 1949. Therefore, the Copyright Act 1911, relied on by the claimant, did not apply to publications in India made in the year 1982.

The court held the view that the claimants had no legal right to the copyright but still considered the merits of the application:

Regarding whether the works are protected by Copyright Act 1911, the claimant did not show which category the film fell in or if the film fell in any categories at all.

There was no evidence that the photograph of the actor playing the role of “Gandhi” was used in a newspaper advertisement by the claimant.

There was no evidence that the video cassettes contained a reproduction of the film. The affidavit supporting the application for the injunction included a witness statement who visited the store. The witness was informed by someone who identified as the operator of the store that all 50 tapes of the movie “Gandhi” had been rented out.

There is a high bar for granting an Anton Piller order, requiring strong evidence of possession of incriminating documents or things and a risk these items will be destroyed before any applications can be made to the court.

There was no evidence of pirating, reproduction or distribution, or possession of incriminating items, and no evidence that such alleged items would be destroyed. As such, the Anton Piller order was discharged.