The owner of the rights to the video clips, included in the series, unfairly withdrew from the negotiations on signing licensing agreement and transferred his rights to the management of the company, specializing in recovering compensation for the violation of exclusive rights. The number of claims was many times higher than the number of licensing royalties paid in relevant circumstances. Our lawyers were able to prove that the actions of defendant were unfair and represented the abuse of the right to defense.
As the court established during the trial, the Author and the Defendant reached an agreement according to their correspondence in Telegram and written consent of the Author about including video clips in the film. Taking into account this fact, the author and the defendant developed legal relations due to the use of videos with the author approval and determined the fundamental conditions.
The Court found that the Plaintiff’s claim about the illegal use of video clips was groundless. Moreover, the Court noted that the Author refused to sign the contract on previously agreed terms. It means his owns actions created conditions which prevented the payment of remuneration.
The court decided to refuse to satisfy all the claims.
This verdict is actually precedent-setting. The verdict says that the principle of good faith, which is supposed to take into account all the rights and interests of the other party, is considered by courts. This case shows that it is important to evaluate not only the actions of the Defendant but also the actions of the Plaintiff’s party.