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

Personality rights are among several measures the government must take to maximise the potential of the music licensing market, say lawyers
Pascal Faure, director general of INPI, explains why keeping a cool head is key, and discusses plans to leverage IP assets to secure funding
Lawyers at Carpmaels & Ransford explain how the healthcare sector has not simply participated in the UPC’s early years, but actively shaped it
The firm has hired former in-house counsel Quintin Cassady to lead the launch of the new office
The combined firm has strong IP credentials across the US, Middle East, UK and Europe, despite Taylor Wessing’s German and French practices not joining
Priya Nagpal, who this month became the firm’s eighth IP partner, says its cross-practice expertise in areas closely linked to IP was a key draw
Harm van der Heijden is to join Ankar as head of patent innovation after 17 years in private practice
Alabama attorney Miya Aladebumoye has launched a new firm built on ‘big law’ experience and a personal touch approach
A UKIPO campaign aimed at combating fakes in the pre-loved fashion market and registration of the first Portuguese craft and industrial geographical indication were also among the top talking points
Chris Adams, Managing IP’s research lead, joins us to explain what practitioners need to know ahead of our first rankings release of 2026
Gift this article