Case Nos: IL-2023-000080 and IL-2024-000038 - [2025] EWHC 2561 (Ch)
Fecha: 10-Oct-2025
The defendants’ case in summary
The defendants’ case in summary
Codeberry’ service allows its customers to search and verify addresses across the UK. At the core of the service is Codeberry’s GetAddress Database. For the most part its customers are provided with an application programming interface (API), a set of rules and protocols which allows the customer’s computer system to communicate with Codeberry’s software via the internet and thereby to access GetAddress.
The defendants’ pleaded case is that they made no use of PAF data in the creation of their database. This is from the Re-Re-Amended Defence:
‘The Defendants independently created their own database of address information from resources available on OGL terms or otherwise on open source terms.’
OGL stands for Open Government Licence. The pleading goes on to list 12 datasets said to be freely available to the public which were ‘incorporated into the initial address database’.
The same pleading admits that in October 2015 Mr Smith ‘created an account with [IDDQD] in order to test [IDDQD’s] services.’ It is also admitted that since 31 October 2015 Mr Smith used his account with IDDQD to download data from IDDQD’s GBR Database. The defendants say that they were licensed to do so pursuant to the account with IDDQD opened by Mr Smtih. The GBR data was used only to update and correct their database.
- 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