The Netherlands: Urgent interest or not?

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

The Netherlands: Urgent interest or not?

The Dutch interim injunction court is only competent in cases with urgent interest. A recent case, Ruby Decor v Basic Holdings, raised the question whether or not such urgent interest was indeed present.

In prior proceedings, Ruby Decor was prohibited from infringing Basic Holdings' patent EP B 2 029 941 relating to artificial fireplaces. Basic Holdings was awarded the enforcement instrument of penalty payments for non-compliance. Ruby Decor designed three alternative variations of fireplaces and requested Basic Holdings to confirm that these would not infringe the '941 patent and that marketing these variations would not invoke penalty payments.

When Basic Holdings refused to confirm this, Ruby Decor requested in new interim injunction proceedings that Basic Holdings be prohibited from using its enforcement instrument against the new variations. Ruby Decor alleged there was an urgent interest because they would suffer considerable damages when, in retrospect, marketing the variations were to infringe the '941 patent. Hence, Ruby Decor had an interest in knowing in advance whether or not Basic Holdings would proceed to claim penalty payments if Ruby Decor marketed any of the fireplace variations. However, Basic Holdings argued that Ruby Decor did not have any (urgent) interest because there was no sign of imminent execution in the absence of evidence that Ruby Decor would actually market any of the variations.

The interim injunction court ruled that the certainty requested by Ruby Decor cannot be provided in interim injunction proceedings due to the absence of (urgent) interest. No facts or circumstances of imminent execution by Basic Holdings were produced. Rather, the question whether any of the fireplace variations infringes the '941 patent should be assessed in main proceedings, and the question whether penalty payments are due should be dealt with in execution proceedings. In particular, the court ruled that it is not possible in interim injunction proceedings to impose a prohibition as claimed by Ruby Decor that is unconditional and unlimited in time.

maas.jpg

Huub Maas


V.O.Johan de Wittlaan 72517 JR The HagueThe NetherlandsTel: +31 70 416 67 11Fax: +31 70 416 67 99info@vo.euwww.vo.eu

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

In other news, Ericsson sought a declaratory judgment against Acer and Netflix filed a cease-and-desist letter against ByteDance over AI misuse
As trade secret filings rise due to AI development and economic espionage concerns, firms are relying on proactive counselling to help clients navigate disputes
IP firm leaders share why they remain positive in the face of falling patent applications from US filers, and how they are meeting a rising demand from China
The power of DEI to swing IP pitches is welcome, but why does it have to be left so late?
Mathew Lucas has joined Pearce IP after spending more than 25 years at Qantm IP-owned firm Davies Collison Cave
Exclusive survey data reveals a generally lax in-house attitude towards DEI, but pitches have been known to turn on a final diversity question
Managing IP will host a ceremony in London on May 1 to reveal the winners
Abigail Wise shares her unusual pathway into the profession, from failing A-levels to becoming Lewis Silkin’s first female IP partner
There are some impressive AI tools available for trademark lawyers, but law firm leaders say humans can still outthink the bots
Lawyers at Simmons & Simmons look ahead to a UK Supreme Court hearing in which the court will consider whether English courts can determine FRAND terms when the licence is offered by an intermediary rather than an SEP owner
Gift this article