At the end of last year, the Supreme Court sent I. Must\u2019s lawsuit back to the circuit court for new adjudication. When in a 2019 decision the circuit court satisfied I. Must\u2019s lawsuit in the amount of approximately 16\u00a0000 euros, then on the new adjudication of the case on the 19.03.2021 the circuit court satisfied I. Must\u2019s action in total amount of 47\u00a0134,30 euros, plus default interests and ordering in favour of I. Must both damages and the revenue from the infringement.<\/p>\n
It is a remarkable decision. Although the income received in bad faith has been sentenced out before, it has never been done in advertisement music by violating the copyright law. In summary, the circuit court emphasized that Orkla Eesti AS is liable to I. Must (regardless of the fact that the advertisement music was ordered through different individuals and the so-called final arrangers were T. Padar and S. R\u00e4sta, respectively) and Orkla Eesti AS\u2019s allegations that they ordered new compositions to the advertisements was refuted by the evidence brought out in the case. Orkla Eesti AS has infringed copyright of I. Must by making arrangements to his original work and using them in their advertisements for a long period of time. The court also did not agree with Orkla Eesti AS statement that as a food industry company it was not able to check whether the arrangements made by S. R\u00e4sta and T. Padar were ,,new original pieces of music\u2019\u2019.<\/p>\n
The decision has not entered into force and can be appeal to the Supreme Court within 30 days.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
At the end of last year, the Supreme Court sent I. Must\u2019s lawsuit back to the circuit court for new adjudication. When in a 2019 decision the circuit court satisfied I. Must\u2019s lawsuit in the amount of approximately 16 000 euros, then on the new adjudication of the case on the 19.03.2021 the circuit court satisfied I. Must\u2019s action in total amount of 47 134,30 euros, plus default interests and ordering in favour of I. Must both damages and the revenue from the infringement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[69,70],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7097","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-office-news","category-dispute-resolution"],"better_featured_image":null,"acf":{"add_images":false,"choose_news_feed":false},"aioseo_notices":[],"yoast_head":"\n