PCCW Vuclip (Singapore) PTE Ltd v E.tv (Pty) Ltd (37629/2021) [2021] ZAGPJHC 143; [2021] HIPR 181 (GJ) (24 August 2021)

PCCW Vuclip (Singapore) PTE Ltd v E.tv (Pty) Ltd (37629/2021) [2021] ZAGPJHC 143; [2021] HIPR 181 (GJ) (24 August 2021)

The court found that eTV had not established a realistic prospect of proving at arbitration that there was an implied or tacit term in the licence agreements requiring Vuclip to secure its platform to prevent piracy to the standard contended for. The agreements placed the primary obligation to address copyright infringement on eTV, with Vuclip required only to render reasonable assistance. The court held that imposing an absolute duty to prevent piracy would set an unreasonably high standard, potentially undermining the market for such licences and the constitutionally protected exchange of ideas. Vuclip demonstrated a prima facie right to interim relief, as eTV's arguments did not throw...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 143
Parties
Applicant: PCCW Vuclip (Singapore) PTE Ltd; Respondent: E.tv (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 August 2021
Case Number
37629/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Arbitration
Outcome
Interim interdict granted; licence agreements reinstated pending arbitration; respondent ordered to remove exclusively licensed content from eVOD; costs to be determined in arbitration.
Judges
S D J Wilson
Legal Topics
Video on Demand Licensing, Implied Terms, Tacit Terms, Piracy Prevention, Specific Performance
Intellectual Property Commercial and Corporate Video on Demand Licensing Implied Terms Tacit Terms Piracy Prevention Specific Performance

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PCCW Vuclip (Singapore) PTE Ltd

Applicant

E.tv (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Arbitration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is an implied or tacit term in the licence agreements requiring the licensee to secure its platform against piracy.
  2. 2 Whether eTV lawfully cancelled the licence agreements based on alleged breaches by Vuclip.
  3. 3 Whether Vuclip is entitled to interim relief reinstating the licence agreements and requiring removal of content from eVOD.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that eTV had not established a realistic prospect of proving at arbitration that there was an implied or tacit term in the licence agreements requiring Vuclip to secure its platform to prevent piracy to the standard contended for. The agreements placed the primary obligation to address copyright infringement on eTV, with Vuclip required only to render reasonable assistance. The court held that imposing an absolute duty to prevent piracy would set an unreasonably high standard, potentially undermining the market for such licences and the constitutionally protected exchange of ideas. Vuclip demonstrated a prima facie right to interim relief, as eTV's arguments did not throw...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict granted; licence agreements reinstated pending arbitration; respondent ordered to remove exclusively licensed content from eVOD; costs to be determined in arbitration.

Orders

  • The forms, service and time periods prescribed by the Uniform Rules of Court are dispensed with and the application is heard as one of urgency in terms of Rule 6 (12).
  • The application to strike out is dismissed.