Toddler seeks N200 million in damages for ‘photocopyright infringement.’

Ibekimi Oriamaja Reports

Miss Faria Mikayla Aouad, a toddler, has filed a N200 million privacy and copyright infringement suit against two firms and a woman for allegedly using her photo and changing her name in the firm’s promotional competition without her permission.

Aouad filed the FHC/L/CS/990/2018 suit at the Federal High Court in Lagos on behalf of her parents, Mr. Anthony Aouad and Mrs Chinwendu Aouad, who are the second and third Plaintiffs.

The first, second, and third defendants in the suit are Unilever Nigeria Plc, Wild Fusion Limited, and Mrs. Anjorin (aka Mummy Pelumi).

Miss Aouad claimed that the defendants took and used her photo for advertising and commercial purposes, which her mother, the second plaintiff, posted on her Instagram account on September 29, 2017.

Between September 30, 2017 and October 2, 2017, the photo was allegedly entered in Unilever’s Independence Day promotional competition known as “Pears Best Dressed” or “#PearsBestDressed” on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.

The plaintiffs’ case was settled on February 10, 2022. The defendants presented their case before Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke on September 29, 2022, the last adjourned date of the suit.

Aneke J. continued the proceedings until January 17 and 18 to allow plaintiffs’ counsel to cross-examine the first defendant’s witness.

Kelechukwu K. Okwujiako represented the plaintiffs, while Charles Bassey was the first defendant’s counsel.

However, in their statements of defence, the first and second defendants asked the court to “dismiss this suit with substantial costs as it is, lacking in merit, frivolous, vexatious, and a complete waste of the court’s time.”

The first defendant denied the existence of any copyright in the photograph, as alleged or otherwise.

It denied that the second plaintiff was the author and/or copyright owner of the photograph, as well as any other photograph allegedly taken by the second plaintiff on September 29, 2017, or any other date.

The first defendant also denied any infringement of the second plaintiff’s copyright, material or otherwise, and stated that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the claims.