Short Reads

Amsterdam Court of Appeal denies copyright and database right protection for standard test-result tables

Amsterdam Court of Appeal denies copyright and database right protection for standard test-result tables

24.02.2017 NL law

On 22 November 2016, the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam rendered its judgment in the case of Pearson Assessment and Information against Bär Software.

Pearson publishes psychological tests that consist of a questionnaire, testing materials, a score form and a manual for marking specific tests. It publishes its tests and the results thereof for the benefit of psychodiagnostic research in the context of diagnosing (mental) disorders and syndromes, intelligence assessments, and medical advice. Bär Software develops and runs the Roermond's Score Programme (RSP), by means whereof tests made available by Pearson and other publishers can be 'scored' and a (draft) report is generated (the RSP report) thereafter. To this end, Bär uses data that have been made available by Pearson, and it also uses the scoring rules from Pearson's manuals.

The legal dispute between Pearson and Bär relates to the questions whether Pearson's psychological tests are protected by copyrights and database rights, and whether Bär infringed those rights. In addition, Pearson alleges that Bär Software acted unlawfully towards Pearson by using (parts of) psychological tests developed by Pearson in the context of Bär's RSP software.

The District Court in Amsterdam dismissed Pearson’s claims by concluding that Pearson's standard test tables containing standard data are not protected by copyright or database rights and that Bär did not act unlawfully towards Pearson. Pearson lodged an appeal against the District Court's judgment.

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal considered that an assessment should be made to determine if the separate elements of Pearson's test are protected by copyright. It held that Pearson's statistical tables containing scoring data are merely a collection of objective research data, and more specifically, they represent factual information about the test results of standard groups. It also held that these tables containing statistical data are not creative expressions and do not bear the personal mark of the author. Consequently, Pearson's tables are not protected by copyright. The same applies to the contents of the tables (data as such) and the scoring rules contained in the manuals.

Subsequently, the Court of Appeal had to answer the question whether Bär infringed Pearson's possible database rights (which do not qualify as copyrights but as sui generis rights). The debate on appeal was centralized on the “substantial investment” criterion. There must be a “substantial investment” (in terms of either quantity or quality) in obtaining, verifying, or presenting the contents of a database in order to seek protection and subsequently prevent the extraction and/or re-utilization of the database contents by third parties. When assessing whether a “substantial investment” has been made, the costs involved in the creation of the relevant database are disregarded.

The Court of Appeal concluded that Pearson did not invest substantially in making existing, independent, informative data accessible. Pearson's investments relate to mostly the development and verification of the testing materials and their validity, and not to the method of making such materials accessible. Pearson's reliance on database right protection therefore failed.

In respect of Pearson's claim alleging that Bär acted unlawfully towards Pearson by using (parts of) Pearson's tests, the Court of Appeal considered that – in general – to facilitate free competition and innovation, one is allowed to use third parties' efforts and to develop and exploit add-ons in respect thereof. In the case here, there were no specific circumstances that led the Court to conclude that Bär acted unlawfully towards Pearson. Pearson's claims on grounds of unlawful act were therefore also denied.

Pearson, as the non-prevailing party, was ordered to pay the actual costs incurred as a result of the appeal proceedings (i.e., €23,816 for fees and €4,961 for disbursements), since in IP proceedings, such as the case at hand, parties may seek from the non-prevailing party the actual costs incurred instead of (the fairly limited amount of) court-approved, scale-based costs.

The case can be found here.

Team

Related news

23.05.2017 BE law
Verplichte toegang tot breedbandinternet als stedenbouwkundige verplichting: quo vadis?

Articles - Deze blog onderzoekt het toepassingsgebied van de verplichtingen (en eventuele vrijstellingen) uit de gewestelijke stedenbouwkundige verordening inzake breedband. Ook de praktische kant van de zaak komt aan bod: hoe moet hiermee in een vergunningsaanvraag worden omgegaan? Tenslotte worden enkele bedenkingen gemaakt of deze verplichtingen - gelet op hun uiterst geringe stedenbouwkundige impact - wel thuis horen in het domein van de ruimtelijke ordening.

Read more

21.04.2017 NL law
18 May 2017: TMT/IP Masterclass: Advertising Law Update

Masterclass - The TMT/IP (Technology,  Media and Telecommunications / Intellectual Property) team at Stibbe Amsterdam will host a Masterclass about recent developments and regulations in advertising law. During the Masterclass, TMT Lawyer Janna van Olst will discuss important regulations and the most leading cases from the 12 months.

Read more

30.05.2017 EU law
The Growth of Collective Redress in the EU: A Survey of Developments in 10 Member States—the need to maintain safeguards

Articles - In 2013, the European Commission adopted a Recommendation on Collective Redress. It invited Member States to adopt a collective redress framework by July 2016 that would include the features mentioned in the Recommendation and then by July 2017, to report to the Commission about the extent to which they had done so. On the basis of the Member States’ report, the Commission will assess whether further actions by the EU is required.

Read more

12.04.2017 NL law
What does a legal entity know?

Short Reads - In civil law many rules rely for their legal effect on the presence of certain knowledge or a certain intention with one of the parties. If the party at hand is a legal entity, like a limited company (besloten vennootschap), it can be difficult to determine what the entity knew. Fragments of information can be present in different parts of the organisation; an officer of the company may have gained his knowledge trough his private life; he may also have a duty of confidentiality.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy and Cookie Policy