Case Nos: IL-2023-000080 and IL-2024-000038 - [2025] EWHC 2561 (Ch)
Fecha: 10-Oct-2025
IDDQD’s claim
IDDQD’s claim
IDDQD says that the defendants’ acts of downloading IDDQD’s GBR Database into the GetAddress Database and then marketing that database was in breach of IDDQD’s database right in the GBR Database.
As is common ground, the RMG EUT were incorporated into the agreement between IDDQD and Mr Smith. IDDQD says that the acts by the defendants just referred to were in breach of the RMG EUT and also other terms of the agreement.
The defendants raised the following issues as part of their defence, either as pleaded or as argued at the trial:
Database Right
Subsistence and ownership of database right in the GBR Database.
Whether it was Mr Smith or Codeberry that entered into the agreement with IDDQD.
Whether Codeberry was licensed under the terms of the agreement even if it was not a contracting party.
Whether the acts of the defendants complained of were licensed under IDDQD’s own terms.
Whether the acts of the defendants complained of were licensed under the RMG EUT.
Whether the defendants are entitled to rely on reg. 19 of the 1997 Regulations.
If Mr Smith was the contracting party to the agreement, whether he was acting as a consumer within the meaning of the 2015Act and if so, whether that affords the defendants a defence.
Whether the defendants infringed database right owned by IDDQD.
If Codeberry has infringed IDDQD’s database right, whether Mr Smith is jointly liable..
Breach of contract
Whether Mr Smith was in breach of the agreement between Mr Smith and IDDQD, other than the RMG EUT if incorporated.
Whether the agreement between Mr Smith and IDDQD incorporated the RMG EUT.
If so, whether Mr Smith was in breach of the RMG EUT.
Whether the RMG EUT are not sufficiently clear to be binding and enforceable.
Whether the terms of the agreement between Mr Smith and Codeberry were in restraint of trade.
Additional Damages
Whether there is a liability for additional damages.
- 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