Case Nos: IL-2023-000080 and IL-2024-000038 - [2025] EWHC 2561 (Ch)
Fecha: 10-Oct-2025
Regulation 19 of The Database Regulations
Regulation 19 of The Database Regulations
Reg.19 of the Database Regulations provides:
‘Avoidance of certain terms affecting lawful users
19.—(1) A lawful user of a database which has been made available to the public in any manner shall be entitled to extract or re-utilise insubstantial parts of the contents of the database for any purpose.
Where under an agreement a person has a right to use a database, or part of a database, which has been made available to the public in any manner, any term or condition in the agreement shall be void in so far as it purports to prevent that person from extracting or re-utilising insubstantial parts of the contents of the database, or of that part of the database, for any purpose.’
Reg.19(1) appears to go no further than reinforcing reg.16(1): a database right can only be infringed if there is extraction or re-utilisation of all or a substantial part of the contents of the database. An insubstantial part will not suffice. Reg.19 is derived from art.8 of the Database Directive. I was referred to the Statement of Reasons in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the EC Council’s Common Position (EC) No. 20/95, at 26-27, which indicates that indeed the provision was intended to be clarificatory.
Reg.19(2) goes further by providing that a party may not rely on a contractual term to prevent the extraction or re-utilisation of an insubstantial part. Nothing in reg.19 detracts from the effect of reg.16(2).
- 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