The judge also ordered the company to destroy or deliver up all infringing material.

In her 131-page reserved judgment, District Judge Thian Yee Sze also held that Virtual Map should stop 'dealing in maps which are reproductions of SLA's street directory vector data and address point vector data', among other things.

The judge further ordered an inquiry into the damages due to SLA.

Depending on what SLA wants, a court registrar could ask for an account of Virtual Map's profits.

Virtual Map (VM) is an online map firm which also develops and publishes location-based software and systems. There are hundreds of small and medium enterprises who pay a fee each time they reproduce maps from its website.

As publisher of the popular website www.streetdirectory. com, it was originally a licensee of the SLA for certain data - like street address points and directory points, which the SLA claimed copyright to.

But, although its licence from SLA was terminated in July 2004, VM's maps continued to appear on its websites.

SLA's position had been that VM no longer had the SLA's consent to reproduce the maps.

VM's case had been that its maps were not substantial reproductions of the SLA's works.

The company had also maintained that even if there were similarities, infringement did not happen because there was an implied term in its contract that allowed the company to keep and create maps even after the licence deal lapsed.

The company also argued that its maps from Aug 9, 2004, were created independently using other methods like the Global Positioning System points, satellite images and ground surveys.

District Judge Thian disagreed.

She said VM's improvement and 'beautification' of its online maps was 'no mean feat' but this was a separate issue from whether its online maps were the products 'of its own independent creation'.

The judge said that VM could not 'escape the truth' that its map-creating process was heavily dependent on SLA's data because SLA's information had provided the 'skeleton' for VM's online maps.

She also rejected VM's defence that SLA knew that it provided maps for a fee - and therefore SLA had implicitly approved.

Lawyers from Drew & Napier represented SLA, while VM was defended by counsel from Rodyk & Davidson.