Database rights protection
We continue the publication of arbitration decisions on the topic of disputes in the field of IT. Today, we have chosen the topic of protecting exclusive rights to databases, namely information and other content that constitutes their content.
Recall that since 2008, the database has protected not only the structure, but also its content, provided that the creation of such a database required substantial financial, material, organizational or other costs. By law, such costs are assumed when the database includes at least ten thousand independent information elements (materials).
Considering that legal language is rather complicated for perception (especially after holidays), at the end of the text we give brief comments in Russian.
')
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the company created by the team of its former developers in connection with the respondent’s alleged use of a database identical in content and structure to the database of the plaintiff created based on the monitoring of information on tenders posted on the Internet.
The reason for the appeal to the court was the dispatch of proposals by the respondent to companies for the granting of rights of access to a similar database.
The plaintiff believed that the defendant took advantage of the intellectual activity of the plaintiff, which constituted its commercial secret, and wrongfully offered the participants of the pharmaceutical market a database identical in content and structure to the database, the exclusive right to which belongs to the plaintiff. According to the claimant, the respondent could not, within 10 days after registering the organization of the respondent, create the same database that the claimant filled for a long time.
Claims for the protection of exclusive rights by suppressing actions that create a threat of infringement of the exclusive right, publishing a court decision on the violation, indicating the actual copyright holder of the database, withdrawing from circulation and destroying the defendant’s exclusive rights to database.
The court of first and appeal instance refused to satisfy the claims.
1. According to paragraphs. 2 of article 1260 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the database is a set of independent materials presented in an objective form (articles, calculations, regulations, judicial decisions and other similar materials), systematized so that these materials can be found and processed using electronic computing machines (computer), and the database manufacturer is recognized as the person who organized the creation of the database and the work of collecting, processing and arranging its constituent materials (clause 1 of Article 1333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
2. The burden of proof is laid on the claimant for the defendant to use the computerized set of independent materials systematized by the claimant.
3. The plaintiff provided inadequate evidence. In support of its claims, the plaintiff refers only to the fact that the defendant offers to an unlimited number of people to use materials similar to those contained in the database, the rights to which belong to the plaintiff (information from the defendant’s website on the Internet.
Presented by the plaintiff printouts downloads from the database of the plaintiff and the defendant are not appropriate evidence in the case, because they do not allow with a sufficient degree of clarity to establish the presence or absence of circumstances justifying the claims and objections of persons involved in the case, as well as other circumstances important for proper consideration affairs
4. The defendant stated that he lawfully owns a database similar to the database of the plaintiff, on the basis of a license agreement with a third party.
5. Therefore, the plaintiff did not prove that:
a) the database of the defendant in terms of the totality of the materials presented in it, their systematization, the principle of searching and processing using a computer is similar to the database of the claimant ;
b) the defendant’s database is derived from the claimant’s database and could not be created without using the database, the rights to which belong to the claimant .
As a result, the courts concluded that the defendant had acquired exclusive rights to use a different database. The latter is an independent result of intellectual activity enjoying legal protection, and is a systematized in a certain way collection of information from various sites on the Internet, which is formed through automatic monitoring of relevant websites, access to which is open, with the help of specialized programs.
1. It can be very likely to assume that the circumstances of the case correspond to the claimant’s version: the situation when developers leave the company, taking all the results with them, is not uncommon in practice.
2. The plaintiff lost the case because He did not provide the court with objective evidence that the database distributed by the defendant copies its database in substantial part.
3. In fact, the case deals with the violation of copyright to the database as a kind of structure and related rights to the totality of information materials included in it.
4. To take care of the protection of their own development is necessary at the stage of their creation. It should document in detail the results of the work. In this case, the court should have presented the internal documents of the claimant, describing the structure of the database, the principles of systematization of materials in it, the description of the algorithms for searching and processing materials from the database, requirements for materials by subject, composition, technology for collecting and filling the database, etc.
5. It was necessary to conduct the state registration of the database, within which the description of its structure and materials should be deposited.
6. The plaintiff could request the respondent to submit similar documents and involve a third party in the case, who provided the respondent with a license database.
7. On the basis of documents identifying the database (Clauses 4, 5), it was necessary to conduct an examination, within which to compare the database of the claimant with the database of the defendant. The court does not possess the necessary knowledge in the field of informatics and linguistics, therefore it is reasonable to consider the provided printouts as insufficient.
Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal No. 09-33768/2012- from 26.11. 2012
Recall that since 2008, the database has protected not only the structure, but also its content, provided that the creation of such a database required substantial financial, material, organizational or other costs. By law, such costs are assumed when the database includes at least ten thousand independent information elements (materials).
Considering that legal language is rather complicated for perception (especially after holidays), at the end of the text we give brief comments in Russian.
')
The subject of the dispute
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the company created by the team of its former developers in connection with the respondent’s alleged use of a database identical in content and structure to the database of the plaintiff created based on the monitoring of information on tenders posted on the Internet.
The reason for the appeal to the court was the dispatch of proposals by the respondent to companies for the granting of rights of access to a similar database.
The plaintiff believed that the defendant took advantage of the intellectual activity of the plaintiff, which constituted its commercial secret, and wrongfully offered the participants of the pharmaceutical market a database identical in content and structure to the database, the exclusive right to which belongs to the plaintiff. According to the claimant, the respondent could not, within 10 days after registering the organization of the respondent, create the same database that the claimant filled for a long time.
Claims for the protection of exclusive rights by suppressing actions that create a threat of infringement of the exclusive right, publishing a court decision on the violation, indicating the actual copyright holder of the database, withdrawing from circulation and destroying the defendant’s exclusive rights to database.
The court of first and appeal instance refused to satisfy the claims.
Decision motivation
1. According to paragraphs. 2 of article 1260 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the database is a set of independent materials presented in an objective form (articles, calculations, regulations, judicial decisions and other similar materials), systematized so that these materials can be found and processed using electronic computing machines (computer), and the database manufacturer is recognized as the person who organized the creation of the database and the work of collecting, processing and arranging its constituent materials (clause 1 of Article 1333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
2. The burden of proof is laid on the claimant for the defendant to use the computerized set of independent materials systematized by the claimant.
3. The plaintiff provided inadequate evidence. In support of its claims, the plaintiff refers only to the fact that the defendant offers to an unlimited number of people to use materials similar to those contained in the database, the rights to which belong to the plaintiff (information from the defendant’s website on the Internet.
Presented by the plaintiff printouts downloads from the database of the plaintiff and the defendant are not appropriate evidence in the case, because they do not allow with a sufficient degree of clarity to establish the presence or absence of circumstances justifying the claims and objections of persons involved in the case, as well as other circumstances important for proper consideration affairs
4. The defendant stated that he lawfully owns a database similar to the database of the plaintiff, on the basis of a license agreement with a third party.
5. Therefore, the plaintiff did not prove that:
a) the database of the defendant in terms of the totality of the materials presented in it, their systematization, the principle of searching and processing using a computer is similar to the database of the claimant ;
b) the defendant’s database is derived from the claimant’s database and could not be created without using the database, the rights to which belong to the claimant .
As a result, the courts concluded that the defendant had acquired exclusive rights to use a different database. The latter is an independent result of intellectual activity enjoying legal protection, and is a systematized in a certain way collection of information from various sites on the Internet, which is formed through automatic monitoring of relevant websites, access to which is open, with the help of specialized programs.
Comments on the case
1. It can be very likely to assume that the circumstances of the case correspond to the claimant’s version: the situation when developers leave the company, taking all the results with them, is not uncommon in practice.
2. The plaintiff lost the case because He did not provide the court with objective evidence that the database distributed by the defendant copies its database in substantial part.
3. In fact, the case deals with the violation of copyright to the database as a kind of structure and related rights to the totality of information materials included in it.
4. To take care of the protection of their own development is necessary at the stage of their creation. It should document in detail the results of the work. In this case, the court should have presented the internal documents of the claimant, describing the structure of the database, the principles of systematization of materials in it, the description of the algorithms for searching and processing materials from the database, requirements for materials by subject, composition, technology for collecting and filling the database, etc.
5. It was necessary to conduct the state registration of the database, within which the description of its structure and materials should be deposited.
6. The plaintiff could request the respondent to submit similar documents and involve a third party in the case, who provided the respondent with a license database.
7. On the basis of documents identifying the database (Clauses 4, 5), it was necessary to conduct an examination, within which to compare the database of the claimant with the database of the defendant. The court does not possess the necessary knowledge in the field of informatics and linguistics, therefore it is reasonable to consider the provided printouts as insufficient.
Judicial act
Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal No. 09-33768/2012- from 26.11. 2012
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/290260/
All Articles