Taskflow (Pty) Ltd v Aluxium (Pty) Ltd and others [2021] JOL 51491 (GP)

Let’s explore the case of Taskflow (Pty) Ltd v Aluxium (Pty) Ltd and others [2021] JOL 51491 (GP).

This case highlights the importance of providing clear evidence of copyright ownership and infringement, especially when dealing with software and open-source frameworks. It also underscores the need for timely action when seeking urgent relief.

Court and date of decision

High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria, 21 September 2021

Key facts

• Taskflow (Pty) Ltd (the applicant) sought an interdict against Aluxium (Pty) Ltd and its directors, Andre de Kock and Christian Frische (the respondents), for alleged copyright infringement, unlawful competition, and breach of fiduciary duties.
• The second and third respondents were former directors of Taskflow and left to establish Aluxium, a competing company. Taskflow alleged that Aluxium was using its source code without permission.
• Taskflow applied for urgent interdictory relief and had previously obtained an Anton Piller order to preserve evidence.

Application

• Taskflow requested the court to prevent the respondents from using its source code in the software services they provided. Taskflow argued that it owned the copyright to the code and sought to protect its proprietary rights.
• The application was brought on a semi-urgent basis.

Discussion

• The court first considered whether the case was truly urgent. It found that Taskflow had delayed in seeking relief, as it had known of the respondents’ actions for several months before filing the application. This delay undermined the urgency of the case.
• On the merits, the court found that Taskflow had not adequately established that it owned the copyright in the source code. The applicant failed to prove key elements such as the originality of the work or that the work qualified for copyright protection. Additionally, Taskflow conceded that the source code it was protecting was based on open-source frameworks, which weakened its claim to proprietary rights.
• The court also found that Taskflow did not establish a sufficient degree of similarity between its code and Aluxium’s to justify an allegation of copyright infringement.

Findings

• The court ruled that Taskflow failed to establish a prima facie right to the source code or demonstrate sufficient harm to warrant interim relief.
• Furthermore, Taskflow had not shown that it lacked an adequate alternative remedy, as the Copyright Act provided for compensation through damages or royalties if infringement were proven.

Order

The application was dismissed with costs.

ITLawCo’s recommendations

1. Establish ownership: Ensure clear documentation of ownership and originality when claiming copyright in software.
2. Act quickly: Avoid delays in seeking legal remedies, particularly in cases of alleged infringement.
3. Alternative remedies: Consider all available remedies, including damages or royalties, before pursuing urgent court action.

How ITLawCo can help

ITLawCo can assist clients in safeguarding their intellectual property rights by providing legal guidance on copyright protection, drafting contracts, and navigating the complexities of intellectual property disputes. Our team can help ensure that your legal claims are backed by strong evidence and handled efficiently to protect your interests. Contact us today.