Newly-established media entity—Village Voice GY Inc, has filed a $3M lawsuit against its former Director Nigel Williams, and Lincoln Lewis whom it accuses of using its company logo without permission.
The company in its statement of claim alleged that Williams, blatantly at some time between October 2020 and April 2021 conducted business using its artistic work and logo without authorization or licence.
Through its attorney Teni Housty, Village Voice GY Inc, (the Claimant), argues that Williams and Lewis, (the Defendants), have infringed the copyright of its artistic work.
According to the Claimant, Lewis “has admitted that he is part of a group which is responsible for the publication of “The Village Voice News” in print and digitally;” of which, according to court documents seen by this newspaper, Williams is the Chief Editor.
The Claimant’s claim is that both Williams and Lewis—between October 2020 and April, 2021 have continued without authorisation, permission and or license to use its artwork and have barred it from access, use and control of not only its logo; but website, email, Instagram and Facebook accounts as well.
It accuses the defendants of taking control of its various online platforms.
According to Village Voice GY Inc, Williams and Lewis have infringed its copyright by, printing and issuing to the public without its licence, a work entitled “Village Voice” in which the notes and the alterations and additional matter comprised in the new arrangement constituted by the form of the second edition of its artwork or a substantial part thereof has been reproduced without its authorisation, permission and or licence.
Village Voice’s claim is that Williams and Lewis were aware that they had copied substantial parts of its artwork—use of which it says it has never authorized.
The Claimant deposed, too, that the defendants have also infringed its copyright by selling or offering for sale a printed newspaper, without its authorization; since the April 4th—“a large number of copies of the “Village Voice News” which to their (the Defendants’) knowledge infringed it’s copyright.
The Claimant go on to argue that the defendants have caused internet traffic to be diverted from villagevoicegy.com which it owns, to the Defendants’ villagevoicenews.com while emphasizing that they have also utilized twitter, Instagram and other social media bearing the name Village Voice Guyana as well as the Claimant’s Artistic Work.
The Claimant deposed that it has suffered damage as a result of the actions of the defendants.
It is against this background that the Claimant is seeking damages in excess of $3 million dollars against Williams and Lewis.
The Claimant wants, among other things, a declaration that the Defendants have infringed the copyright of its artwork “Village Voice;” and an injunction accordingly restraining them from advertising, dealing with, possessing in the course of a business, selling, offering or exposing for sale or distributing in the course of business, any copies of materials bearing its work “Village Voice” or any other reproductions of the Claimant’s work or any substantial part of it.
The Claimant also wants an order for obliteration or modification of all marks upon all goods, newspapers, websites, domain names, sign boards, advertisements, circulars, notepaper, business cards, letter heads, stationery, labels, wrappers, photocopies, or other printed matter or digital media, including social media, in the possession, custody or control of the defendants.
The Claimants are also hoping that the court would grant a declaration that the defendants have committed passing off its logo containing the words “Village Voice with a bullhorn image’” and the words “Daily Newspaper Serving Villages Across Guyana.”
Additionally, the Claimant wants an injunction restraining Williams and Lewis from using its logo, “Village Voice” and any words including the words “Village Voice GY” such as “Village Voice News” or a setup similar to that of the Claimant’s any trading style containing the words “Village Voice GY” or any colourable imitation thereof without clearly distinguishing such from the goods of the Claimant or by any other means.
