Intellectual Property Enterprise Court

Claim No: IP-2021-000114 - [2023] EWHC 3153 (IPEC)

Fecha: 08-Dic-2023

Development of the Claimant’s customer relationship management database

Development of the Claimant’s customer relationship management database

17.

In his witness statement Mr Chapman said that early in 2020 he became aware of flaws in the customer relationship management system then being used by the Claimant, and so he started to create excel spreadsheets and workflows that the Claimant could use alongside its existing system to trade and record information more efficiently. He said that the complexity of those spreadsheets and workflows developed over time to include “vast amounts of information, including details of businesses, contacts, live jobs, salary arrangements, fee percentages and targets”.

18.

Mr Chapman said that one of his main responsibilities was to carry out online research of businesses in the landscaping sector for the purpose of compiling the Claimant’s prospective client database. He said he would identify a relevant business, make contact with it by telephone to introduce himself and the Claimant, and ask for the direct contact details of relevant directors or senior managers. Once obtained he would store those on the Claimant’s systems “which do not contain any information that can be obtained publicly or through publicly available sources”. In cross-examination, he conceded that some of the information in it might be available on LinkedIn, if the relevant individuals at the companies had actively posted their contact information on there. He further accepted that some of that information might be available on subscription business contact services.

19.

It became apparent during the course of his oral evidence that by denying that any of the data could be obtained through ‘publicly available sources’ Mr Chapman meant ‘publicly available free sources’. He maintained his position that considerable work in time and effort had gone into compiling the customer relationship management system, and that it would not be easy to replicate, although he conceded that an experienced recruiter would be able to do it.

20.

Mr Ludley conceded in cross-examination that the Claimant must have expended time gathering the data in the database, although he thought he could do it in three hours. He said that the database could be recreated easily using the Rocketreach website and the website of the British Landscapers Association. However, he conceded that those sources would be unlikely to include 39 contact details within one organisation, as the Claimant’s database had for one of its clients, Idverde.

21.

It is, of course, easier and quicker to recreate a database when you know what it contains, than create a database from scratch. However I do not consider that Mr Ludley’s time estimate to recreate it is credible and on balance I am satisfied that is a significant under-estimation. I accept Mr Chapman’s evidence about the time and effort he expended in gathering and ordering the data in the database, that most of it was not publicly available data, and that publicly available data may not be correct whereas he checked the information he input into the database.

22.

Mr Ludley also made the following concessions and admissions in cross-examination:

That the customer relationship management database from which the Claimant’s Client List was derived had a value, although he did not accept that it was a significant one;

ii)

That a recruitment company would pay for a copy of the database, but he said that would be no more than £200-£300, as they could recreate it easily. However (a) I have found that he has underestimated the time (and so cost) or recreating it; (b) I note he had sent an email to Kerry Thompson of Select Databases in July 2022 asking about buying a database of phone numbers for £499 plus VAT; and (c) he accepted that a paid-for list would not be as targeted, focused or useful as one built up by a business over time;

iii)

That if he didn’t have a database he would not have been able to send the 27 June Email; and

iv)

He knew he was not free to simply take and use the Claimant’s Client List.