The Court allowed William Hill’s appeal, holding that BHB had not established that the ECJ had given its earlier ruling on the basis of an erroneous assumption of fact and that the result of applying the ruling was that BHB’s Database did not fall within Article 7 of the Directive or within the Database Regulations. The final list was what mattered and was something different in character. What went before, even though it may have involved selection, did not qualify the list for sui generis right.
Jacob LJ said: ‘So far as BHB’s database consists of the officially identified names of riders and runners, it is not within the sui generis right of Art.7(1) of the Directive. And I think the same reasoning applies in those cases (big races) where the BHB publishes a list of provisional runners prior to final declarations. Again what is published is different in character from a mere list of gathered in information. It is a list of horses that BHB have accepted as qualifying to race – as properly and actually entered.’
Judges:
Pill, Clarke, Jacob LJJ
Citations:
[2005] EWCA Civ 863, [2005] RPC 35
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – British Horseracing Board Ltd v William Hill Organisation Ltd PatC 9-Feb-2001
The defendants received data, prepared and distributed by the claimants, regarding horse races, and incorporated the information into their web pages as part of a betting service. There might have been other, indirect, ways of obtaining the same . .
See Also – British Horseracing Board Ltd and Others v William Hill Organization Ltd CA 31-Jul-2001
The Board had established a database of information about horse racing. It was costly. The defendants recovered the information from a licensed user, and used it for its own business purposes. It was not suggested that the licensee had any right to . .
At ECJ – The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Others v William Hill Organization Ltd ECJ 9-Nov-2004
bhb_whECJ2004
The claimant sought to prevent re-use by the defendant of information from its horse racing subscription service. They claimed that they had a database right in the information. It cost andpound;4m per year to assemble.
Held: The expression . .
Cited by:
Cited – Attheraces Ltd and Another v British Horse Racing Board and Another ChD 21-Dec-2005
The claimants relayed horse racing events to bookmakers. The respondents collected data about the races and horses. The claimants sought the freedom to use that data, and the defendants asserted a database right to control such use.
Held: BHB . .
Cited – Attheraces Ltd and Another v The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Another CA 2-Feb-2007
The defendant appealed a finding that it had abused its dominant market position in refusing to supply to the claimant a copyright licence for its information on horse racing at a proper or acceptable price. The defendant was said to have a monopoly . .
Cited – Football Dataco Ltd and Others v Brittens Pools Ltd (In Action 3222) and Others ChD 23-Apr-2010
The court considered what rights existed in the annual football fixture lists created by the claimants. The claimants said that the list was created only with a considerable effort applying certain rules. The defendants denied that any copyright . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European, Intellectual Property
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.228478
