Innoweb protects investment in an online database against a service that does not copy its data. A dedicated meta search engine may re-utilise all or a substantial part of a database by translating users’ queries into the third party’s search engine in real time and presenting the results as its own search service.
Legal status of this article: 30 December 2013. This article discusses the Court’s judgment of 19 December 2013 in Case C-202/12 concerning Article 7 of Directive 96/9/EC.
A car meta search service accessed third-party advertisement databases
The service enabled users to search several websites containing vehicle sale advertisements at once. It translated the input into the search forms of the covered databases in real time and grouped duplicate results.
The results appeared in the meta engine’s format and followed sorting criteria comparable to those of the original database sites. This largely replaced their own search route for users.
Re-utilisation does not require a copy of the database
The operator made an alternative route to the contents available to the public. It offered search advantages equivalent to the protected database without itself having an interest in the individual information.
That distinguished the activity from mere consultation by an end user. The public provision of a functionally competing access route mattered, not technical storage of a copy.
The search covered all or a substantial part of the database
The fact that each query displayed only some results did not alter that the meta engine made the entire dataset searchable in principle. The actual number of results returned for each query was therefore immaterial.
The Court also identified a risk that users would bypass the original site and its advertising or advertisers would select only one database. The maker may thereby lose revenue used to recoup its database investment.
Data access, interfaces and aggregation need clear boundaries
Database makers should document investment, access routes, search functions, terms of use and automated queries. Aggregators must assess whether they merely link or functionally replace a third-party search and expose its entire contents.
API and licence contracts should govern query scope, caching, presentation, duplicate grouping, updates, remuneration and blocking rights. Copyright, contract, unfair competition and technical access restrictions may matter alongside the sui generis right.
Practical checklist for databases and meta search services
- Document protected database investment and substantial contents.
- Compare search forms, real-time translation and result presentation functionally.
- Assess whole-database access, individual queries and repeated use separately.
- Identify effects on original visits, advertising and recoupment.
- Set API, licence, caching and blocking rules contractually.
Related insights
- CJEU Football Dataco: copyright protection for databases
- CJEU Football Dataco v Sportradar: online re-utilisation of a database
Official source
This article provides a general overview and does not replace assessment of database investment, protection conditions, search function, re-utilisation, substantial part, licence, contract, technical access and national remedies.