Protecting data and database – watch your evidence

Do you know it? You work hard to obtain special information, not secret information (data), but information that took you effort to obtain, or data that you must first edit well, or data that after this you know how to show well to your customer potential, e.g. on your website. And then others go on to use your databases.

Tracpartz

That happened to Tracpartz. Tracpartz has operated a web store under the domain name TracPartz.nl since 2009. It sells tractor parts for old mini tractors from Japan. On its website, Tracpartz displayed the parts in question with special dates. In her case, these were the original data provided by the Japanese manufacturer (so-called compatibility information). It mentioned that this information was suitable not only for its own tractors, but also for other tractor brands and/or types, at least certain parts.

Tracpartz against copycat behavior

Naturally, Tracpartz has written to the counterfeiter – party X – to stop extraction and counterfeiting, supplemented by a claim for damages. X denies his unsolicited copying. But because Tracpartz had deliberately introduced some errors, this revealed the unsolicited copying. So far so good, you would think. Tracpartz went to court and court and invoked the Copyright Act viz. for data collections as a “copyrighted work,” as well as the Database Act. The latter is for collecting non-original data that has cost you a lot of money and effort. Thus, you meet the condition in the Databases Act described as the “substantial investment. But how did it turn out for Tracparts?

Errors as evidence of copying

At the trial court, the 2019 Tracpartz summons letter was reviewed. Initially, only the Copyright Act had been invoked and only in a second letter also the Database Act. That was incorrect. Tested was also whether there was evidence of travel and accommodation costs to Japan, translation costs, salary costs of the employees who processed orders as part of the online store, keeping track of which parts fit which tractor (the “substantial investment” requirement). That wasn’t right either, because there was no evidence of it and it wasn’t specifically offered the appeal (which it should be). Painful for Tracpartz, Sometimes an appeal on additional circumstances can still offer a chance or an additional legal ground such as unjust enrichment , but Tracpartz had no evidence for that either. A sympathetic case but with a disappointing outcome.

Conclusion

Yes, the Copyright and Database Act can protect your (company) data. You can do so provided you can prove that (a) the acquisition, (b) control or (c) presentation of that data in your database – quantitatively or qualitatively – has/have required a substantial investment. And yes, it must not only be asserted but also provable, otherwise you cannot successfully claim it.

Questions

Do you have any questions as a result of this article? If so, please contact one of our attorneys by email, phone or fill out the contact form for a no-obligation initial consultation. We are happy to think along with you.