global effort to ensure enforcement of intellectual property rights. This is well articulated in the
preamble to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS
agreement) referred to in Part II of the Second Schedule to the Act to which Uganda is a
signatory.
The Act was enacted in Uganda to give effect to the guidelines in the TRIPS agreement. It does
recognize the need for the collecting society in Uganda to enter into reciprocal agreement with
foreign societies or other bodies of authors or neighbouring rights owners for the issue of
authorization in respect of their members’ works and for the collection and distribution of copy
rights fees deriving from those works. This is clearly provided under section 58 (c) of the Act as
one of the functions of any society or body that so wishes to be registered as a collecting society.
In view of the above, I would answer the question as to whether PRS (UK) could confer the
power to enforce those rights to another collecting society in the affirmative because to state
otherwise would undermine the global efforts in enforcing intellectual property rights. That now
leads me to consider the specific provisions of the contract in order to determine whether the
plaintiff was clothed with the power to sue in its names as it claims.
I have carefully looked at the relevant provisions of the said contract and particularly article 2
(1) (c) which provides as follows:(1) The exclusive right to authorize performances, as referred to in Article 1,
entitles each contracting societies, within the limits of the powers
pertaining to it by virtue of the present contract, and its own Articles of
Association and rules, and of the national legislation of the country or
countries in which it operates(a)
………….
(b)
………
(c)
To commence and pursue, either in its name or that of the author
concerned, any legal action against any person or corporate
body and any administrative or other authority responsible for
illegal performances.
The above provision of the contract empowered the plaintiff to sue either in its name or in the
name of the author in whose work the copy right is alleged to have been infringed. That was the
clear intention of the parties to the contract. This court is of the opinion that where the plaintiff
opts to sue in its name like in this case then no power of attorney would be required. However,
where it opts to sue in the names of the author then a power of attorney would be required
because then it would be acting as an agent.
8