Database disputes

Database right

Database right is a proprietary right governed by the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997 (CRD 1997), SI 1997/3032, which implemented Directive 96/9/EC (EU Database Directive). Database right arises automatically when there has been a substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the database contents. A database is defined as a ‘collection of independent works, data or other materials which are arranged in a systematic or methodical way and are individually accessible by electronic or other means’ (CRD 1997, SI 1997/3032, reg 12, and section 3A(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988)). For example, the definition of database would include an electronic or hard copy encyclopedia or a telephone directory.

Database right can subsist whether or not the database or its contents are a copyright work. There is no requirement for an 'author’s own intellectual creation' (as there is for copyright); the test is whether there has been a 'substantial investment' and this will turn on the facts as not all databases qualify for protection. Database right only protects the arrangement of the database as a means of storing

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest IP News

Data (Use and Access) Bill passes through Parliament and heads for royal assent

Parliament passed the Data (Use and Access) Bill (DUA Bill) on 11 June 2025. First introduced in October 2024, this passage concludes a protracted legislative process as a notable amount of legislative 'ping pong' (nine rounds of back-and-forth) took place between the two Houses. Central to these discussions was the contentious issue surrounding the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems. During the last debate on 11 June 2025, the House of Lords opted against insisting once more on its amendment, which would have required further government legislation on copyright infringement and transparency in AI. Instead, the peers accepted an amendment in lieu from the Commons, which mandates the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to lay a progress statement before Parliament within six months of the DUA Bill’s enactment, outlining advancements on the review. The DUA Bill will now move forward for royal assent at a date yet to be confirmed.

IP weekly highlights—12 June 2025

This week's edition of IP weekly highlights includes: a hand-picked summary of news analysis, updates and new content from the world of IP. These highlights focus on the key rights of copyright and associated rights, database rights, trade marks and passing off, designs, and patents, as well as covering issues relating to confidential information, know-how R&D and IP disputes all mainly from a UK and European perspective.

IPO reports rise in Trading Standards enforcement actions under Trade Marks Act

The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) annual Trading Standards survey for 2024-25 reveals multiple successful prosecutions under the Trade Marks Act 1994. Notable cases include a £270,000 confiscation order in Berkshire, a 20-month suspended prison sentence in Ceredigion with ongoing Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings, and multiple premises closure orders across the UK. The report, covering April 2024 to March 2025, shows increased enforcement activity with 70% of local authorities responding. Trading Standards officers secured convictions for counterfeiting offences across various jurisdictions, with courts issuing closure orders, confiscation orders and criminal sentences.

Joint prosecution for counterfeit cranberry sauce supply offences

West Yorkshire Trading Standards and Kirklees Council have jointly prosecuted Irfan Hanif Patel and Mohammed Patel for supplying counterfeit cranberry sauce. Irfan Patel, operating as a sole trader and Mohammed Patel, as director of Stock Up Direct Limited, have both pleaded guilty to offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and breaches of food hygiene regulations by trading without registering their food businesses. At Leeds Crown Court, Irfan Patel has been sentenced to a 12‐month community order including 120 hours of unpaid work and issued a confiscation order of £18,903, reflecting a declared benefit of £681,510.47 from criminal conduct. Mohammed Patel has been sentenced to a 12‐month community order with 100 hours of unpaid work and issued a confiscation order of £1,607, matching his declared benefit. The proceedings were conducted under the framework of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.