Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd

“Copyright does not protect data stripped of human creativity.”

SHORT DESCRIPTION

The decision in Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd is a significant Australian copyright case dealing with the protection of compilations, databases, and safety information sheets. The Federal Court examined whether material derived from factual data and regulatory standards can attract copyright protection. The ruling reaffirmed that copyright subsists only where there is sufficient human intellectual effort and original expression, not merely in the collection or rearrangement of factual or mandatory information.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Acohs Pty Ltd operated a business that provided occupational health and safety information, including Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), to clients for a fee. These documents were compiled using information drawn from chemical manufacturers, regulatory requirements, and industry standards. Ucorp Pty Ltd, a competing business, supplied similar MSDS documents to its customers.

Acohs alleged that Ucorp had infringed its copyright by copying substantial portions of its MSDS documents. It argued that although the information was technical and regulated, the selection, structure, and presentation involved sufficient originality to attract copyright protection.

ISSUES INVOLVED

The key issues before the Court were whether MSDS documents qualify as original literary works under copyright law and whether documents largely dictated by regulatory requirements can be protected by copyright. The Court also considered whether similarities between the parties’ documents resulted from copying or from compliance with common statutory standards.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Acohs contended that its MSDS documents involved substantial skill, labour, and judgment in compiling and presenting safety information. It claimed that Ucorp’s documents were too similar to be coincidental and must have resulted from copying.

Ucorp argued that MSDS documents are heavily prescribed by law and industry standards, leaving little room for originality. It maintained that any similarities arose from the use of the same factual data and regulatory frameworks, not from copying Acohs’ expression.

FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT

The Federal Court ruled largely in favour of Ucorp. It held that most of the MSDS content was dictated by regulatory requirements and factual necessity, leaving insufficient scope for originality. The Court emphasized that copyright cannot be used to monopolize information that must, by law, be communicated in a particular way.

While acknowledging that some limited portions of the documents might involve original expression, the Court found no substantial reproduction of copyright-protected material. As a result, no infringement was established.

SUGGESTION / PRACTICAL TAKEAWAY

This case is particularly relevant for businesses dealing with compliance-driven documents. It highlights that copyright protection is weak where content is standardized or legally mandated. Companies should consider contractual protections and branding strategies rather than relying solely on copyright to protect such materials.

JUDGMENT

Year: 2012

The Federal Court of Australia held that most MSDS documents lacked sufficient originality for copyright protection and that Ucorp had not infringed Acohs’ copyright.