Toddler seeks N200m from Unilever, 2 others over ‘photo copyright infringement‘

A toddler, Miss Faria Mikayla Aouad, has filed a N200 million privacy and copyright infringement suit against two firms and a woman for alleged unauthorised use of her photo and alteration of her name in the firm’s promotional competition.

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

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

Miss Aouad averred that the defendants, for advertising and commercial purposes, took and made unauthorised use of her photo which her mother, the second plaintiff, posted on her Instagram account on September 29, 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 between September 30, 2017 and October 2, 2017.

The plaintiffs closed their case on February 10, 2022. At the last adjourned date of the suit, September 29, 2022, the defendants opened their case before Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke.

Aneke J. adjourned proceedings till January 17 and 18 to enable the plaintiffs’ counsel to cross-examine the first defendant’s witness.

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

But the first and second defendants, in their statements of defence, prayed 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 that any copyright exists in the photograph, as alleged or at all.

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

The first defendant further denied that it committed any infringement of the second plaintiff’s copyright, at any time material or at all, adding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the claims.