A Federal High Court in Lagos has dismissed a N1 billion lawsuit filed against MTN Nigeria Communications Plc by Walls and Gates Ltd and Okechukwu Udeichi, its managing director, over alleged copyright infringement, breach of confidentiality, and trademark violations arising from MTN’s 20th anniversary promotional campaign.

Delivering judgement on Tuesday, Justice Ayokunle Faji held that the plaintiffs failed to establish any legally protectable right in their proposal titled “20 for 20”, describing the action as frivolous, speculative, and vexatious.

The court dismissed the suit in its entirety and awarded N3m in costs against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs instituted the action under Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1935/2021, alleging that MTN unlawfully used their “20 for 20” proposal, which they claimed to have submitted to the telecoms company on 17 September 2019, ahead of MTN’s 20th anniversary celebration in 2021.

They argued that MTN’s anniversary promotion, in which 20 sport utility vehicles were given out to subscribers, emanated from their proposal and amounted to infringement of their copyright, confidential information, and trademark.

Based on those claims, the plaintiffs sought N1bn in damages or, alternatively, an order directing MTN to render an account of revenue generated from the promotion and remit 50 per cent of it to them.

MTN denied the allegations, contending that the proposal was an unsolicited business idea that imposed no contractual or confidential obligation on the company.

The telecoms firm maintained that its 20th anniversary programme was independently developed and that the plaintiffs’ document was merely a general business concept not protected under Nigerian copyright law.

MTN further argued that the plaintiffs lacked a valid registered trademark and failed to demonstrate access to or copying of any protected expression.

In resolving the dispute, Justice Faji noted that the plaintiffs conceded during oral submissions that they failed to prove their claim of trademark infringement, leaving only the issues of alleged breach of confidentiality and copyright infringement for determination.

On confidentiality, the court held that no confidential relationship existed between the parties.

Justice Faji observed that before sending the proposal to MTN, the plaintiffs had already submitted it to the Nigerian Copyright Commission and relied on it for a trademark application, thereby placing the document in the public domain.

The judge further noted that after transmitting the proposal to MTN, the plaintiffs admitted circulating it to other organisations, which extinguished any claim to confidentiality.

According to the court, MTN had no obligation to respond to an unsolicited proposal in the absence of a contractual, fiduciary, or business relationship, or a non-disclosure agreement.

On the allegation of copyright infringement, the court held that registration with the Nigerian Copyright Commission does not confer copyright, stressing that Nigerian law protects expressions, not ideas or business concepts.

Justice Faji ruled that the plaintiffs’ “20 for 20 Millennium Promotion” amounted to no more than an idea of rewarding customers during an anniversary celebration and lacked the originality and intellectual effort required for copyright protection.

He described the proposal as a bare business concept devoid of original qualities capable of attracting copyright. The judge also held that MTN’s use of the phrase “MTN 20th Anniversary” was a natural description of an anniversary event and did not originate from any protectable work of the plaintiffs.

He further relied on evidence showing that MTN affiliates in other jurisdictions had implemented similar anniversary reward ideas before the plaintiffs’ proposal.

Justice Faji characterised the suit as a “gold-digging exercise” aimed at forcing a commercial relationship on MTN. He criticised the plaintiffs for using MTN’s trademark in their proposal without authorisation and then seeking to ground a billion-naira claim on the same document, adding that the case wasted valuable judicial time.

While affirming that citizens should have access to the courts, the judge stressed that such access must be limited to suits with prima facie merit.

He therefore awarded N3m in costs in favour of MTN, holding that costs must follow the event.

The court accordingly dismissed the suit in its entirety and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the awarded costs to the defendant.

Credit: Punch