Experience Hendrix LLC v Purple Haze Records Ltd & Anor [2005] EWHC 249 (Ch) (24 February 2005)

Experience Hendrix LLC v Purple Haze Records Ltd & Anor [2005] EWHC 249 (Ch) (24 February 2005)

The Stockholm Performances were qualifying performances under the Act; the claimant holds the relevant performer's rights; the Yameta Agreement did not assign or license those rights to the defendants or their licensors; and the second defendant is personally liable as a joint tortfeasor due to his direct involvement in the infringing acts. The defendants have no realistic prospect of successfully defending the claim.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 249 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Experience Hendrix LLC; First Defendant: Purple Haze Records Ltd; Second Defendant: Lawrence Miller
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Infringement (summary Judgment Application) / Summary Judgment Determination Under CPR 24.2
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the claimant against both defendants.
Legal Topics
Performer's Rights, Copyright Infringement, Summary Judgment, Joint Tortfeasance, Assignment of Rights
Intellectual Property Entertainment Law Performer's Rights Copyright Infringement Summary Judgment Joint Tortfeasance Assignment of 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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Experience Hendrix LLC

Claimant

Purple Haze Records Ltd

First Defendant

Lawrence Miller

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Infringement (summary Judgment Application) / Summary Judgment Determination Under CPR 24.2

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Stockholm Performances were qualifying performances under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and subsequent regulations
  2. 2 Whether the claimant holds valid performer's rights in the Stockholm Performances
  3. 3 Whether the defendants infringed those rights by making and selling copies of the performances

Ratio Decidendi

The Stockholm Performances were qualifying performances under the Act; the claimant holds the relevant performer's rights; the Yameta Agreement did not assign or license those rights to the defendants or their licensors; and the second defendant is personally liable as a joint tortfeasor due to his direct involvement in the infringing acts. The defendants have no realistic prospect of successfully defending the claim.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the claimant against both defendants.

Orders

  • Defendants found liable for infringement of performer's rights in the Stockholm Performances.
  • Summary judgment entered in favour of the claimant against both defendants.