WEBSITE BLOCKING REFUSAL ON THE GROUNDS OF RES JUDICATA
Single Judge First Instance Court of Athens (Security Measures) No. 10452/2015
on the case
AEPI* & GRAMMO** vs. Greek Internet Service Providers (ISP’s)
First Publication of summary: IPrights.gr
- The applications for security measures against ISP’s on the ground of article 64 A Law No 2121/1993 [Implementing Art. 8, Sec. 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC] are dismissed as unacceptable given the existence of temporary res judicata deriving from the previous decision No. 13478/2014 of the same Court, issued between the same parties, for the same object and on the same factual and legal ground.
- The object of the trial is not differentiated by the fact that the present petition refers to partially different websites than those mentioned in the previous decision. In fact, the object of the litigation is the recognition of the formative right of the plaintiffs for the provision of temporary judiciary protection and not the websites per se.
- In case that two or more contradictory decisions are issued for the same legal relationship between the same parties [in this case: dec. no 4658/2012 and 13478/2014 of the Single Judge First Instance Court of Athens], the res judicata that derives from the newest decision is valid.
*AEPI is a Greek Collective Management Organization of copyright on musical works.
** GRAMMO is the Greek Collective Management Organization of music producer’s related rights.
Key-words: Intellectual Property in Greece; Greek Copyright Law; Copyright law in Greece; music copyright; phonograms; musical works; provisional measures; security measures; article 64 A Law 2121/1993; music piracy; Internet Service Providers; website blocking; IP blocking; domain name blocking; AEPI; GRAMMO; temporary res judicata; decision No 4658/2012 of the Single Judge First Instance Court of Athens; decision No 13478/2014 of the Single Judge First Instance Court of Athens, refusal of applications as unacceptable.
Legal provisions: art. 64 A Law No 2121/1993 [Implementing Art. 8, Sec. 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC], art. 321, 322, 324, 331, 332, 682 ff. and 544 Greek Civil Procedure Code
See further:
Decision No 13478/2014 of the Single Judge First Instance Court of Athens
MUSIC COPYRIGHT: THE PUBLIC PERFORMANCE OF MUSICAL WORKS NOT PERTAINING TO “AEPI”* & “AUTODIAHIRISI”* REPERTOIRE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY EXEMPT ΕSTABLISHMENTS FROM THE PAYEMENT OF RELATED RIGHTS ROYALTIES TO “GEA”**
Single Judge First Instance Court of Thessaloniki (provisional measures)
Decision No. 4657/2015
οn the case
Greek Joint Collective Management Organization of related rights (GEA) vs Night clubs owners
First Publication of summary: www.IPrights.gr
There is no obligation of payment of royalties to “AEPI” and “Autodiahirisi” for an establishment performing in public exclusively music repertoire of companies such as “Fairmusic” and “Jamendo”, given that its owner declares on honour that the repertoire perfomed therein belongs to authors who are not members of the above CMO’s. However, this does not exempt from the payment of the equitable remuneration of related rights owners due to “GEA”.
*AEPI & AUTODIAHIRISI are the Greek Collective Management Organizations of copyright on musical works.
** GEA is Greek Joint Collective Management Organization of related rights.
Key-words: Intellectual Property in Greece; Greek Copyright Law; musical works; public performance of music; food and beverage establishment; music necessary for operation; night club; Thessaloniki; GEA; AEPI; Autodiahirisi; equitable remuneration; Fairmusic; Jamendo; Creative commons; tarrif list; music public performance licence; financial crisis; interim determination of equitable remuneration.
Law provisions: art. 46, 47 para. 1, 49 para. 1, 6 and 7, 55 para. 2, 63 para. 2, 65 Law No. 2121/1993 [Greek Copyright Act]; art. 46 para. 1 and 3 Law No. 3904/2010; Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations; document No. 16641/10-5-2011 issued by the Hellenic Copyright Organization.
TRADEMARK LAW: CONDITIONS FOR LAWFUL USE OF A ΤΗΙRD PARTY’S TRADEMARK IN THE COURSE OF TRADE BY A NONBENEFICIARY
Greek Supreme Court [Àreios Pàgos] (1st Civil Chamber), decision n° 486/2015 on the case: Ε.Ι. PAPADOPOULOS S.A. vs. BINGO S.A
The use of a third party’s trade mark in the course of trade is allowed where it is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product. The unaltered use of a third party’s trademark in order to indicate the kind of a product and not its intended purpose is illegal. The unaltered use οf a protected shape of product and a protected shape of packaging by valid third party trademarks is necessary only in order to indicate the kind of the product and not its intended purpose and, as such, is illegal.
Key words: Intellectual Property-Greek Trademark law- Combined Trademark- shape of goods- shape of packaging- lawful use of a third party’s trademark- use of an indication as trademark – use of an indication in good faith
Law provisions: Law No. 2239/1994 [Old Greek Trademark Act], art. 20 para. 1.
ILLEGAL TELEVISΙΟΝ BROADCASTING OF A YOUTUBE VIDEO
Single Member Court of Appeal of Thessaloniki No. 488/2015, ART TV vs the creator of an artistic video
First Publication: http://obtr-dicta.blogspot.gr/
Courtesy of Mr. Th. Kostikos.
The uploading of audiovisual material (video) by its creator to online platforms such as Youtube cannot be considered as a waiver of any economic right on this work. No explicit mention regarding the prohibition of exploitation of the said work by third parties without the consent of the creator is required, since such prohibition is explicitly stipulated in the terms of use of the said platforms.
Key-words: Photograph protection under copyright law- notion of originality in photographs- tilt-shift technique- integration of photographs in a video- illegal television broadcasting of a video-uploading of videos on web platforms (Youtube, Vimeo)- Youtube terms of use- non attendance of the appellant in the first instance.
Law provisions: art. 533 para. 1 and 535 para. 1 Civil Procedure Code; art. 1, 2, 6, 65 Law 2121/1993 [Greek Copyright Act]; art. 281, 346, 914, 932 Civil Code.
Collective Management Organisations: Legal action to be rejected as undefined for not containing declaration regarding the conclusion of assignment agreements between the CMO and the creators
District Court of Thessaloniki No 1594/2015 on the case: music copyright CMO vs. food establishment
The legal action brought by a CMO against a user for unauthorised public performance of musical works shall be rejected as undefined if it does not comprise any declaration regarding the existence of assignment agreements between the CMO and the creators of the works in question, as required by art. 55 para. 2 Law 2121/1993. The same applies if the action comprises no mention regarding the accomplishment of formalities imposed by art. 56 para. 3 Law 2121/1993 related with the establishment and publication of applicable tariffs.
Key-words: CMO-music public performance-right to bring proceedings- undefined action
Law provisions: Law No 2121/1993 [Greek Copyright Act], art. 3 para. 1 and 2, 54 para 1 and 3, 55 para. 2, 56 para. 3, 63, 65; Civil Procedure Code, art. 216 para. 1