For “picture copyright infringement,” toddler is seeking N200m.

A child, Miss Faria Mikayla Aouad, sued two companies and a woman for allegedly using her photo and changing her name in the firm’s promotional competition and causing N200 million in privacy and copyright infringement damages.
Aouad, who is the second Plaintiff, and her parents, Mr. Fouad Anthony Aouad and Mrs. Chinwendu Aouad, who are the third and fourth Plaintiffs, filed the lawsuit with the case number FHC/L/CS/990/2018 at the Federal High Court in Lagos.

The lawsuit names Mrs. Anjorin (also known as Mummy Pelumi), Wild Fusion Limited, and Unilever Nigeria Plc as the first, second, and third defendants.

Also Read: Omehia’s ex-gov de-recognition will be signed by Wike.

Miss Aouad claimed that on September 29, 2017, her mother, the second plaintiff, posted a photo of her on her Instagram account. The defendants then allegedly seized that photo and used it for commercial and advertising purposes.

The aforementioned image was purportedly submitted between September 30 and October 2, 2017, to Unilever’s Independence Day promotional competition known as the “Pears Best Dressed” or “#PearsBestDressed” on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.

On February 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs declared their case to be over. The Defendants presented their case to Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke on September 29, 2022, the latest date the case was adjourned.

Aneke J. postponed the hearings to January 17 and 18 of 2023 so that the plaintiffs’ attorney could question the first defendant’s witness in cross-examination.

Charles Bassey was the first defendant’s attorney, and Kelechukwu K. Okwujiako represented the plaintiffs.

However, the first and second defendants requested that the court “dismiss this claim with considerable costs as it is, lacking in substance, frivolous, vexatious, and a complete waste of the court’s time” in their statements of defense.

The first defendant in particular denied that the photograph is protected by any copyright, as claimed, or indeed at all.

It was refuted that the second plaintiff is the photographer and/or owner of the copyright for the image or any other image that was supposedly taken on September 29, 2017, or on any other day.

The 1st Defendant added that the Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the claims and further denied that it had violated the 2nd Plaintiff’s copyright in any way, shape, or form.