Celador Productions Ltd v Melville, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, October 21, 2004, [2004] EWHC 2362 (Ch)
Linked as:
Extract
Celador Productions Ltd v Melville, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, October 21, 2004, [2004] EWHC 2362 (Ch)
Case No: HC 03C00312, HC 03C03608, HC 03C04202
Neutral Citation No: [2004] EWHC 2362 (CH)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECHANCERY DIVISIONRoyal Courts of JusticeStrand, London, WC2A 2LLDate: Thursday, 21st October 2004Before :THE VICE-CHANCELLOR- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Between :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Mr. Richard Arnold QC and Mr. Brian Nicholson (instructed by Messrs Goodwin Derrick) for Celador Productions Ltd and its co-DefendantsMr. Richard Spearman QC and Mr. Andrew Norris (instructed by Messrs Orchard) for Mr MelvilleMr. John Baccini In PersonMr. Timothy Boone In PersonHearing dates : 6th, 7th, 12th and 13th October 2004- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Approved JudgmentI direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic..............................The Vice-ChancellorThe Vice-Chancellor : Introduction1. The well-known TV quiz programme ``Who wants to be a Millionaire?'' (``WWM'') was first shown by ITV on 4th September 1998. Many episodes have been shown since. The programmes have been produced by Celador Productions Ltd (``Celador''), an independent TV production company, in accordance with a format, devised in the period 1995 to 1998 to which Celador claims to be entitled. Three individuals, namely Alan Melville, Timothy Leavey Boone and John William Baccini claim that the creation of the format and the showing of WWM is an infringement of the copyright to which each of them claims to be entitled in respect of a game devised by him as well as involving a misuse of confidential information in relation to that game. 2. Mr Melville relies on the format for a game called ``Millionaires' Row'' the relevant version of which he claims to have devised in April 1995. His claim was first notified to Celador in April 1999. In August 2002 he commenced copyright infringement proceedings in the District Court of California in respect of the showing of WWM in the US. This prompted Celador to institute proceedings in England in January 2003 for declarations of non-infringement. In those proceedings Mr Melville has counterclaimed for injunctions and damages in respect of both infringement of copyright and misuse of confidential information. On 30th June 2003 Celador applied for summary judgment in respect of its claim pursuant to CPR Rule 24.2.3. Mr Boone relies on the format for a TV programme called ``HELP!''. He claims that this was devised by him and a Mr Bull in the period 7th to 28th October 1997. His claim was first communicated to Celador in October 2001. He commenced proceedings for infringement of copyright and misuse of confidential information against Celador on 14th October 2003. On 15th March 2004 Celador applied for summary judgment dismissing that claim under CPR Rule 24.2.4. Mr Baccini claims in respect of the format for two games and the format for a TV show derived from them. The first is a board game entitled ``Millionaire'' devised by him in about 1982 and subsequently adapted for play on the telephone or a computer. The second is ``BT Lottery'' which he claims to have invented in 1990 and subsequently to have incorporated into ``Millionaire''. His claim was not conveyed to Celador until April 2003. Mr Baccini commenced proceedings against Celador and others for infringement of copyright and breach of confidence in December 2003. Celador applied for the summary dismissal of those claims under CPR Rule 24.2 on 18th February 2004.5. The three applications for summary judgment issued by Celador were directed to be heard together by Lewison J on 5th April 2004 and are now before me. Though heard together the applications remain separate and in respect of claims which are factually distinct. What is common to all three applications is (a) the test to be applied under CPR Rule 24.2 and (b) the evidence as to the crea...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
