Application by Isentia Pty Limited

In the Federal Court of Australia, Isentia Pty Limited, an applicant, sought an injunction against Nine Entertainment Co, the respondent, under section 113 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). The applicant, a media monitoring company, alleged that the respondent had infringed its database rights by using its media monitoring services without permission. The applicant sought an injunction to prevent the respondent from continuing its alleged infringement. The case was heard by Justice Greenwood of the Copyright Tribunal of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's database rights had been infringed by the respondent's use of its media monitoring services. The court had to consider the nature of the applicant's database rights, the scope of those rights, and whether the respondent's use of the services fell within the scope of those rights. The court also had to consider whether the applicant's database rights were protected under Australian law.

The court found that the applicant's database rights were protected under Australian law and that the respondent had indeed infringed those rights by using its media monitoring services without permission. The court noted that the applicant had invested substantial resources in creating and maintaining its media monitoring services, which were protected by database rights. The court also found that the respondent's use of the services was substantial and that it had not obtained the necessary permission from the applicant. The court concluded that the applicant was entitled to an injunction to prevent the respondent from continuing its alleged infringement.

The court made interim orders pursuant to section 160 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) to prevent the respondent from continuing its alleged infringement. The parties were directed to submit proposed orders to the Registrar of the Tribunal within 10 days. The reasons for the determination and the interim orders were published from the Chambers of the President of the Copyright Tribunal of Australia, the Hon Justice Andrew Greenwood. The Confidential Schedule to the Reasons for Determination was published to the solicitors for the parties, Mr Timothy Webb of Clayton Utz and Mr John Fairbairn of MinterEllison, having regard to the confidentiality arrangements to which both solicitors were parties. The Confidential Schedule could be supplied by either solicitor to any individual who had entered into the relevant arrangements for the preservation of the confidentiality of the information contained in the Confidential Schedule.