Case Nos: IL-2023-000080 and IL-2024-000038 - [2025] EWHC 2561 (Ch)
Fecha: 10-Oct-2025
Database Right
Database Right
Subsistence and ownership of RMG’s database right
The sole point taken in the defendants’ skeleton with regard to subsistence of database rights in the PAF was that care should be taken to consider only the investment in creating the database itself and nothing other than investment within the relevant period of 15 years. Otherwise, in respect of both subsistence and ownership, it was said that these issues would be explored in the evidence.
Unchallenged evidence from Messrs. Evans, Batchelor and Childes explained the creation and maintenance of the PAF on behalf of the Post Office and subsequently RMG. Mr Batchelor described it as a massive task involving, among other things, input from over 53,000 posties and 9-12,000 changes to the PAF being made each week. Mr Evans said that the operating costs for the PAF have been between £27m and £34m per annum over the last decade.
I am satisfied from the evidence as a whole that RMG and its predecessor have sufficiently invested in the creation of the PAF itself, as opposed to any other associated purpose, for database right to subsist in the PAF as a rolling database. This has been true throughout the relevant period, namely from 15 years before the start of the creation of the defendants’ GetAddress Database to the present, in other words from about 1998 to now.
The work done in maintaining the PAF in that period was by employees of the Post Office and then RMG. Both were incorporated under the law of the UK and qualify as successive makers of the PAF and therefore owners of the database right in the PAF.
The defendants made the argument that it was the Post Office, not RMG, that made relevant investment in the PAF. There was nothing in it. As already noted, the evidence showed that since RMG acquired the business of the Post Office RMG’s employees have done the relevant work. Also in evidence was the Post Office (Transfer of Business No.2) Scheme 2001 made by the Post Office in the exercise of its powers under s.60 of the British Telecommunications Act 1981. Under that Scheme all the property, rights and liabilities of the Post Office were transferred to RMG, then called Consignia Limited.
- Heading
- Judge Hacon
- Interim appeals
- Representation
- The defendants’ skeleton arguments
- Applications during the trial
- The witnesses
- Database Right – the law
- Application of EU law
- Definition of database
- Subsistence
- Ownership
- Infringement
- Substantiality
- Extraction
- Re-utilisation
- Consultation
- Consent
- Regulation 19 of The Database Regulations
- EU law and estoppel, laches and acquiescence
- Copyright – the law
- Applicability of EU law
- Subsistence of copyright in a database
- Transitional provisions
- The consequence of amendments to a database
- Ownership of copyright
- Infringement of copyright
- Issuing copies to the public
- Communication to the public
- Making an adaptation
- Authorisation
- Use of the PAF by RMG
- The defendants’ case in summary
- RMG’s claim in summary
- Database Right
- The creation and maintenance of the GetAddress Database
- Consultation
- Whether the defendants had a licence granted by RMG
- The relevance of RMG’s End User Terms
- Whether RMG otherwise consented to use of the PAF
- Regulation 19 of the Database Regulations
- The Consumer Rights Act 2015
- Restraint of trade
- Copyright
- Subsistence and ownership
- Infringement
- Limitation
- Joint liability
- Additional damages
- IDDQD’s claim
- Database right
- The contracting party in the agreement with IDDQD
- Whether either RMG’s or IDDQD’s licence extended to Codeberry
- Whether the acts of the defendants were licensed under IDDQD’s terms
- Regulation 19 of The Database Regulations
- The Consumer Rights Act 2015
- Infringement of database right
- Joint liability
- Breach of contract
- Cause of action in respect of the RMG EUT
- Breach of the RMG EUT
- Clarity of the RMG EUT
- Restraint of trade
- Conclusions