AMMAN --- August 26, 2007------ Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property (AGIP), a leading global Intellectual Property firm, would like to clarify the facts related to the defamation case brought by AGIP (known before as TMP Agents) against Saba & Co., in which a recent judgment by the Supreme Court of Cyprus has been issued.

The case dates back to May 30, 1988, when Saba sent letters to various organizations, companies and individuals claiming that AGIP did not protect substantially the interests of its clients. On April 16, 2007, the Supreme Court of Cyprus issued a decision in favor of AGIP and ordered Saba and/or their representatives to cease publishing and/or sending similar letters and/or statements and/or otherwise, defaming AGIP.

In an article published on SABA’s website on June 18, 2007, Saba has taken statements from the Court’s judgment out of context and placed them accordingly alongside their own commentary to insinuate the same defamatory claims it made against AGIP initially, violating the Supreme Court’s Order that was issued against them.

Where Saba has mentioned credibility and credibility of witnesses in their article, they have not defined how the Court has used this term, where the Court intended credibility pertaining to the issue of proof of damages in connection with the sending of the defamatory letter, and not credibility in the ordinary sense.

Where Saba has mentioned malicious falsehood, they have not isolated the two terms, and whilst malice was not proved, their final comment was defamatory and that is because it was based on their own conclusions and not fact, rendering the comment, essentially, false. The other facts were not defamatory in that they only described the events which occurred. Where Saba has claimed that such facts were true, this did not influence the final decision of the Court of Appeal since Saba’s conclusive comment regarding the events which took place was found to be defamatory.

Saba went further and violated the Court’s order when they mentioned in their article that the entire contents of the letter they sent were factual, which the court dismissed and ruled that the letter, indeed, included a fundamental defamatory conclusion.

Whilst the defamatory letter could have caused devastating damages, AGIP had a rise in profits from one of their clients and this had to be taken into consideration by the Court pertaining to the credibility of the submission made by AGIP regarding loss of profits. However and contrary to Saba’s spin on this, it is clear evidence of AGIP’s credibility and their clients’ confidence in their services. Accordingly, AGIP was able to surmount the defamatory letter because of their solid reputation in offering clients the best services and protection of their rights.

Finally, Saba mentioned that AGIP won strictly on a legal issue pertaining to public interest. In this regard, AGIP wants to highlight that Saba was not able to satisfy the requirements for defense for having published defamatory comments. The two defenses are “justification” and “fair comment”. The justification defense was not met because justification concerns only statements of fact and not comments. It is only the “fair comment” defense that has the element of “public interest”, this matter only concerned the clients who received the defamatory letter and the two parties to the litigation, and so this defense is not applicable to Saba in the first place. AGIP won because Saba's defamatory comment was not based on facts but on their own presumptions.

AGIP will be taking further legal action against SABA pertaining to their violation of the Court Order.

For the full text of the Court Decision and Order in both English and Greek, click:
- COURT DECISION IN ENGLISH
- COURT DECISION IN GREEK
- COURT ORDER, BOTH IN ENGLISH & GREEK