MTN Wins ₦1bn Copyright Suit As Court Slams Plaintiffs With ₦3m Costs

A Federal High Court in Lagos has dismissed a ₦1 billion lawsuit filed against MTN Nigeria Communications Plc by Walls and Gates Ltd and its Managing Director, Okechukwu Udeichi, over alleged copyright infringement, breach of confidentiality, and trademark violations linked to MTN’s 20th anniversary promotional campaign.

Delivering judgment on Tuesday, Justice Ayokunle Faji described the suit as frivolous, speculative, and vexatious, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to establish any legally protectable right in their proposal titled “20 for 20.” The court dismissed the case in its entirety and awarded ₦3 million in costs against the plaintiffs.

Background to the dispute

The plaintiffs instituted the action under Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1935/2021, claiming that MTN unlawfully adopted their “20 for 20” proposal, which they said was submitted to the telecoms company on September 17, 2019, ahead of MTN’s 20th anniversary celebration in 2021.

They argued that MTN’s promotion — which involved giving out 20 sport utility vehicles to subscribers — was derived from their proposal and amounted to infringement of copyright, confidential information, and trademark rights.

Based on these claims, the plaintiffs sought ₦1 billion in damages or, in the alternative, an order compelling MTN to account for revenue from the promotion and remit 50 per cent to them.

MTN’s defence

MTN denied all allegations, stating that the proposal was an unsolicited business idea that created no contractual or confidential obligation. The telecoms firm maintained that its anniversary campaign was independently developed and that the plaintiffs’ document amounted to a general business concept not protected under Nigerian copyright law.

MTN also argued that the plaintiffs lacked a valid registered trademark and failed to show access to or copying of any protected expression.

Court’s findings

In resolving the matter, Justice Faji noted that the plaintiffs conceded during oral arguments that they failed to prove trademark infringement, leaving only the claims of breach of confidentiality and copyright infringement.

On the issue of confidentiality, the court held that no confidential relationship existed between the parties. The judge observed that the plaintiffs had submitted the proposal to the Nigerian Copyright Commission and relied on it for a trademark application before sending it to MTN, effectively placing it in the public domain.

He further noted that the plaintiffs admitted circulating the proposal to other organisations after sending it to MTN, extinguishing any claim to confidentiality. According to the court, MTN had no obligation to respond to an unsolicited proposal in the absence of a contractual or non-disclosure agreement.

On copyright infringement, the court stressed that copyright protects expressions, not ideas or business concepts, and that registration with the Nigerian Copyright Commission does not, in itself, confer copyright.

Justice Faji ruled that the plaintiffs’ “20 for 20 Millennium Promotion” lacked the originality and intellectual effort required for copyright protection, describing it as a bare business idea. He also held that MTN’s use of the phrase “MTN 20th Anniversary” was a natural description of an anniversary event and did not originate from any protectable work of the plaintiffs.

The judge further relied on evidence showing that MTN affiliates in other jurisdictions had implemented similar anniversary reward ideas prior to the plaintiffs’ proposal.

Costs and final ruling

Justice Faji characterised the suit as a “gold-digging exercise” aimed at forcing a commercial relationship on MTN and criticised the plaintiffs for grounding a billion-naira claim on an unsolicited proposal.

While affirming the right of citizens to access the courts, the judge noted that such access must be exercised responsibly and limited to cases with prima facie merit. He therefore awarded ₦3 million in costs in favour of MTN, holding that costs must follow the event.

The court accordingly dismissed the suit in its entirety and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the awarded costs to MTN.