MTC Sports and Leisure Limited (MTCSL) has applied to the Supreme Court for a temporary order to prevent the Mauritius Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) from broadcasting horse racing images it produces. The order aims at protecting the intellectual property rights of MTCSL until a main case is lodged and decided. Judge Gunesh-Balaghee heard the arguments from both parties in relation to the respective prejudice caused to each party and ruled in favour of MTCSL.
In 2020, Mauritius Turf Club (MTC), being an association, lost its license as a result of an amendment to the Gambling Regulatory Authority Act (GRAA), whereby it was now required for a license owner to be a public limited company.
MBC had an agreement with MTC for the broadcast and transmission of television production of live races. Since the amendment made to the GRAA, these images are now produced by MTCSL and as such, MBC should not be allowed to broadcast or transmit them. However, MBC was still allowed to broadcast the horse racing pending the finalisation of a new contract.
However, given that the new contract has not been finalised till date, MTCSL notified MBC that it no longer had the right to use the horse racing images and issued a notice of ‘mise-en-demeure’. Despite being legally notified, MBC kept on broadcasting the horse racing images of the Maiden Cup through the videos posted on YouTube by MTCSL. As a result, MTCSL applied to the Supreme Court for a restrictive order against these broadcasts that it deemed to be illegal.
For their part, MBC sustained that given MTC is the sole shareholder of MTCSL, it has complete control over the subsidiary. Therefore, the intellectual property of MTCSL is owned by MTC. As such, the contract is still valid and MBC still have the right to broadcast these images. Moreover, they argued that YouTube videos are publicly and freely available and as such, it was not illegal to broadcast them.
The respective issues over the contract and broadcasting rights are to be determined during a main case that is yet to be lodged. In the meantime, the court allowed the interlocutory injunction. This order is not a pronouncement on the respective legal position of MBC and MTCSL concerning the issues at hand. Neither does it give any insight of the strength of the arguments presented by both parties. It is important to understand that such an injunction is a temporary relief. Its purpose is to reduce the prejudice that may be suffered by both parties. In the present case, the court was of the opinion that greater prejudice would suffered by MTCSL if the broadcasting rights are breached any further.
