Case Nos: IL-2023-000080 and IL-2024-000038 - [2025] EWHC 2561 (Ch)
Fecha: 10-Oct-2025
Use of the PAF by RMG
Use of the PAF by RMG
The PAF contains about 32 million addresses, known in the trade as delivery points or DPs, and about 1.8 million postcodes. It is updated almost every day. Its primary purpose from RMG’s point of view is to allow use of the postcodes to ensure that letters and parcels are passed to appropriate regional mail centres, from there to a local delivery office and then to a ‘walk’, which is the route used by a postman or postwoman for delivering mail. There are on average about 400 DPs per walk. Self-evidently, for this to work smoothly the addresses and especially the postcodes must be accurate and up to date.
RMG licenses the PAF for a fee and has done so since the 1980s. Licensees divide into ‘end users’ who use the PAF for internal purposes only, typically to update and maintain the accuracy of their own customer database, and ‘solutions providers’ who incorporate the PAF into their software which is marketed to others.
- 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