Th e Performing Musicians Employers Association of Nigeria (PMAN) has instituted a legal action against the Federal Ministry of Information and Culture over infringement on its intellectual property.
Also joined as defendant/ respondent in the suit fi led at the Federal High Court Abuja, is the Minister of Information and Culture, Mr. Lai Mohammed. Mr. Pretty Okafor, also, joined as a co-plaintiff in the suit number FHC/ABJ/ CS/748/17, and fi led on behalf of the plaintiff s by Ifeanyi Ejiofor.
According to the suit, the plaintiff s are demanding against the defendant’s general damages amounting to the tune of N1billion.
Th e plaintiff s are claiming against the defendants jointly and severally for a declaration that the defendants’ implementation of solutions and action plans contained in the plaintiff s’ project, and proposal on “Bar coding technology for the creative industry in Nigeria” through the conveyance of a two-day conference on “Creative industry fi nancing Conference” held in Lagos on the 17th and 18th day of July 2017, by the defendants, without the consent, and authorization of the plaintiff s, is a gross breach of the plaintiff s’ intellectual property rights on creative industry project.
Consequently, the plaintiff s are seeking an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants, their privies, agents, personal representatives or howsoever called, from infringing on the applicants’ intellectual property rights, through the implementation of solutions and action plans taken from the plaintiff s’ project on the “Bar coding technology for the creative industry in Nigeria”, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.
Th e plaintiff s brought the suit pursuant to Order 28 Rules 1 and 2 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009.
Th e plaintiff s posited that if the defendants are not restrained from further interfering with the subject matter, pending the determination of the substantive suit, it will foist a fait accompli on what will be the ultimate decision of the court.
In a 35-paragraph affi davit deposed to by Mr. Pretty Okafor, the current President of PMAN, the deponent claimed that “upon my assumption of offi ce, as the President of the 1st plaintiff / applicant, I developed and introduced a concept known as ‘PMAN’s biometric I.
D card scheme’ which scheme was formally unveiled on the 13th day of March, 2015, to mark my 100 (One Hundred) days in offi ce as the Executive President of the 1st plaintiff / applicant.
“Th at the ‘PMAN’s biometric I.D card scheme’ concept, upon being generally accepted by the members of the 1st plaintiff /applicant, and launched at Lagos, on the 21st June, 2015, was later repackaged into “Creative Industry Biometric Card project”.
“Th at the Creative Industry Biometric Card project fully registered as Copyright Registration No: LW2539, by my humble self, clearly incorporated “Bar coding technology for the creative industry in Nigeria” as its major project.
Th e plaintiff s said the Bar coding Technology for the Creative Industry in Nigeria off ers diverse security measures for the protection of works of the musicians/entertainers vide anti-piracy solutions, and to a larger extent introduced a road map through which the major players in the creative industry and the defendants/ respondents in particular can earn high through this untapped initiative.
Th at on the 5th day of August, 2016, he led PMAN delegation to the Minister on his invitation, and formally made a presentation to him on how the Federal Government through the PMAN, will generate over N10.3 trillion revenue in the creative industry.
It was in the aforesaid presentation to the Minister, a concept/brainchild known as “Bar Coding Technology for the Creative Industry in Nigeria” was formally introduced to the defendants, the affi davit stated.
After the presentation, it was stated that minister expressed satisfaction with the project/proposal and consequently assured PMAN of Federal government’s readiness to partner with it towards actualizing this noble and laudable initiative.
Th e deponent averred that the Minister had assured PMAN of expeditious conclusion of all necessary bureaucratic bottlenecks towards earliest take off of the project based on their agreed partnership.
However, the affi davit stated that “While further action on the implementation of our project was being awaited in line with our proposed action plan, the defendants without authorization and consent from us, embarked on the implementation of our Bar coding technology for the creative industry in Nigeria. No judge has yet been assigned for the matter.
