KLCE202401359
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Feb 14, 2025Background
- Carliz De La Cruz alleged that her recorded phrase, “Bad Bunny, baby,” was used without consent by artist Benito Martínez Ocasio (Bad Bunny) and his record label Rimas Entertainment in songs and concerts.
- De La Cruz and Martínez Ocasio were formerly in a romantic relationship, and the phrase was recorded at his request in 2015.
- The phrase appeared in “Pa’ Ti” (2016) and “Dos Mil 16” (2022) and was allegedly used in concerts and for commercial purposes.
- De La Cruz filed several claims, including violations of image rights, moral rights of authorship, unjust enrichment, rights under the doctrine of acts propios, and for damages under Puerto Rico law.
- The lower court partially granted motions to dismiss, eliminating claims based on lack of originality, prescription, and redundancy, but allowed some damages claims to proceed.
- Both parties appealed: De La Cruz sought reversal of dismissals; Rimas sought dismissal of the remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protection under author moral rights (originality) | De La Cruz: Phrase "Bad Bunny, baby" is original, creative | Rimas: Phrase is too short, follows genre custom, not original | Court: Not original/creative enough for author rights |
| Prescription of claims for “Pa’ Ti” | De La Cruz: Damages are ongoing, so not time-barred | Rimas: Knew of use when song published; statute has run | Court: Claims for "Pa’ Ti" are prescribed |
| Right to privacy/intimacy as independent action | De La Cruz: Use was unauthorized, violating her privacy | Rimas: Allegations insufficient, law on own image applies | Court: No sufficient allegations for privacy violation |
| Damages for use in concerts | De La Cruz: Concert use is independent claim | Rimas: Concert use not distinct from song release | Court: Not independent claims; properly dismissed |
| Commercial use under image rights law | De La Cruz: Voice was used to market music commercially | Rimas: No sufficient allegations of commercial use | Court: Sufficient allegations to let claim proceed |
| Duplicity of remedies (Civil Code vs. special law) | De La Cruz: Both claims allowed—no double recovery | Rimas: Special law governs, should preclude Civil Code claim | Court: Both allowed; no double recovery will occur |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera Candela v. Universal Insurance Company, 214 DPR _ (P.R. 2024) (sets baseline for pleading sufficiency under Puerto Rico law)
- El Día, Inc. v. Mun. de Guaynabo, 187 DPR 811 (P.R. 2013) (pleadings to be interpreted liberally at dismissal stage)
- Vigoreaux Lorenzana v. Quizno’s, 173 DPR 254 (P.R. 2008) (right to image is separate, derived from right to privacy)
- Consejo Titulares v. Gómez Estremera, 184 DPR 407 (P.R. 2012) (court’s duty to construe pleadings favorably for nonmovant in a motion to dismiss)
- Córdova & Simonpietri v. Crown American, 112 DPR 197 (P.R. 1982) (principle that special law prevails over the general law)