Eurovideo Buildprogramm GmbH v Pulse Entertainment Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 101 (1 February 2002)

Eurovideo Buildprogramm GmbH v Pulse Entertainment Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 101 (1 February 2002)

The judge was correct in construing 'first exploitation right' as a right not previously granted to others, not merely the right to distribute new copies. The construction argument has no real prospect of success. However, the misrepresentation argument is arguable and permission to appeal is granted on that point.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 101
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Eurovideo Bildprogramm GmbH; Defendant/applicant: Pulse Entertainment Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted, limited to the misrepresentation argument.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Interpretation of Licensing Agreements, Copyright Exploitation Rights
Contract Law Intellectual Property Law Misrepresentation Breach of Contract Interpretation of Licensing Agreements Copyright Exploitation Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eurovideo Bildprogramm GmbH

Claimant/respondent

Pulse Entertainment Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the phrase 'first exploitation right' in the licence agreement meant the titles had never been previously distributed within the territory
  2. 2 Whether there was actionable misrepresentation by Pulse regarding the exploitation rights
  3. 3 Whether rescission and/or damages were appropriate remedies

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was correct in construing 'first exploitation right' as a right not previously granted to others, not merely the right to distribute new copies. The construction argument has no real prospect of success. However, the misrepresentation argument is arguable and permission to appeal is granted on that point.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted, limited to the misrepresentation argument.

Orders

  • Appellant counsel allowed 14 days to submit a fresh skeleton argument and grounds of appeal (if necessary)