## Facts

- The British Horseracing Board Ltd. (BHB) and related entities compiled and maintained an electronic horseracing database containing, among other things, horse identities, ownership and trainer details, race conditions, and entries.
- Much of the database content resulted from BHB’s regulatory and organizational activities (e.g., setting race conditions, accepting entries, and checking eligibility), after which the information was stored and updated.
- William Hill operated an online betting service displaying daily race information (e.g., race times, names, and participating horses).
- William Hill obtained that information indirectly through third-party feed providers that relied on BHB’s data, rather than by accessing BHB’s database directly.
- William Hill used information relating to only a small portion of the database on any given day and only some information available for each race.
- BHB alleged infringement of the sui generis database right under Directive 96/9/EC through (i) extraction or re-utilization of a substantial part and/or (ii) repeated and systematic extraction or re-utilization of insubstantial parts with equivalent effect.
- A national court referred interpretive questions to the European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) on the meaning of protected “investment,” “extraction/re-utilisation,” “substantial part,” and cumulative infringement.

## Issues

1. Whether “investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents” includes resources spent creating data (through organizing races and managing entries) or only resources spent collecting pre-existing independent materials.
2. Whether “extraction” or “re-utilisation” requires direct access to the database or can occur through indirect sourcing via intermediaries.
3. How to determine whether a taking is of a “substantial part” of a database, quantitatively and qualitatively.
4. When repeated and systematic taking of insubstantial parts infringes under the cumulative-effect rule.

## Decision

- The court held that “investment in obtaining” refers to resources used to seek out and collect existing independent materials, not resources used to create the data contained in the database.
- The court held that “extraction” and “re-utilisation” are not limited to acts involving direct access; indirect appropriation and dissemination can qualify.
- The court defined a “quantitatively substantial part” by the volume of data taken relative to the database as a whole.
- The court defined a “qualitatively substantial part” by the scale of protected investment tied to the portion taken, even if the volume is small.
- The court held that the cumulative infringement rule targets repeated, systematic acts whose combined effect reconstitutes or makes available the whole or a substantial part of the database and seriously prejudices the maker’s protected investment.
- On the facts described, the court indicated that BHB’s major expenditures were directed to creating race data (not protected “obtaining”), and William Hill’s use did not amount to taking a substantial part or to cumulative reconstitution of the database.

## Legal Principles

- The sui generis database right protects substantial investment in obtaining, verifying, or presenting database contents, not investment in creating the underlying data.
- “Extraction” and “re-utilisation” cover unauthorized appropriation and making available of database contents and may occur without direct database access.
- “Substantial part” is assessed:
  - quantitatively, by the proportion of total contents taken; and
  - qualitatively, by reference to the scale of protected investment linked to the portion taken.
- Repeated and systematic taking of insubstantial parts infringes only when the cumulative effect reconstitutes or makes available the whole or a substantial part and seriously harms the maker’s protected investment.

## Conclusion

The court construed the EU sui generis database right narrowly by excluding investment in creating data from the protected “obtaining” investment and by requiring meaningful quantitative/qualitative substantiality—or cumulative reconstitution with serious prejudice—before liability attaches for extraction or re-utilisation.


British Horseracing Bd. Ltd. v. William Hill Org. Ltd., Case C-203/02, 2004 E.C.R. I-10415 (ECJ 2004)