Case Nos: IL-2023-000080 and IL-2024-000038 - [2025] EWHC 2561 (Ch)
Chancery Division of the High Court

Case Nos: IL-2023-000080 and IL-2024-000038 - [2025] EWHC 2561 (Ch)

Fecha: 10-Oct-2025

IDDQD’s claim

IDDQD’s claim

198.

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.

199.

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.

200.

The defendants raised the following issues as part of their defence, either as pleaded or as argued at the trial:

Database Right

(1)

Subsistence and ownership of database right in the GBR Database.

(2)

Whether it was Mr Smith or Codeberry that entered into the agreement with IDDQD.

(3)

Whether Codeberry was licensed under the terms of the agreement even if it was not a contracting party.

(4)

Whether the acts of the defendants complained of were licensed under IDDQD’s own terms.

(5)

Whether the acts of the defendants complained of were licensed under the RMG EUT.

(6)

Whether the defendants are entitled to rely on reg. 19 of the 1997 Regulations.

(7)

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.

(8)

Whether the defendants infringed database right owned by IDDQD.

(9)

If Codeberry has infringed IDDQD’s database right, whether Mr Smith is jointly liable..

Breach of contract

(10)

Whether Mr Smith was in breach of the agreement between Mr Smith and IDDQD, other than the RMG EUT if incorporated.

(11)

Whether the agreement between Mr Smith and IDDQD incorporated the RMG EUT.

(12)

If so, whether Mr Smith was in breach of the RMG EUT.

(13)

Whether the RMG EUT are not sufficiently clear to be binding and enforceable.

(14)

Whether the terms of the agreement between Mr Smith and Codeberry were in restraint of trade.

Additional Damages

(15)

Whether there is a liability for additional damages.