The Netherlands: Rusk indentation patent does not cause a dominant position

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

The Netherlands: Rusk indentation patent does not cause a dominant position

On December 19 2016 the court in Arnhem decided in preliminary relief proceedings about a patent situation, based on competition law.

The case relates to a patent on a flat baking having an edge indentation. The invention allows a consumer to easily take a rusk out of a tightly packed roll of stacked rusks, without breaking the rusk. This is simply done by inserting a fingertip in the rusk indentation.

Licence agreements exist for several years between the patentee (a Dutch inventor) and two different Dutch bakeries, who are selling rolls of the patented rusks. Recently, another bakery requested to enter into licence negotiations. The patentee refused. The bakery initiated preliminary relief proceedings and demanded a right to enter into licence negotiations, based on competition law. The bakery argued that the patent would give the patentee a dominant position in the relevant market. It was further argued that the patentee's refusal of licence negotiations would be an abuse of the alleged dominant position.

The court considered that various specific rusk packings exist designed for easy removal of stacked conventional rusks not having the patented indentations. For example a roll-packing exists having a kind of zipper, which facilitates reliable removal of conventional rusks from the tight roll-packing. Furthermore it was considered that conventional rusks are available in the market in loose bags, in which case the problem related to removing rusks from a tightly packed roll does not exist. Thus, the court concluded that real and adequate alternatives are available to be active in the same market. Already for these reasons, the court concluded that in the present case there is no question of a dominant position in the relevant market. Accordingly, the court decided that the licence negotiations are not enforcable.

dejong.jpg

Karel de Jong


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

National groups for the UK and the Netherlands have flagged concerns with the choice of venue, following a formal complaint from Australia’s national group
Rasenberger is the CEO at the Authors Guild in the US
Vold-Burgess is the client director at Acapo Onsagers and the former CEO at Acapo in Norway
Williams is the CEO of the UKIPO in the UK
Orliuk is director of the Ukrainian IP office
Julie is chief IP counsel at Teva in the US
Ludlam is chief IP and litigation officer at Lenovo, while Maharaj is chief licensing officer for Ericsson in the US
Campinos is the president of the EPO in Munich
AlSwailem is the CEO of Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property in Saudi Arabia
Ridings, Orozco and Diego-Fernández Andrade are appeal arbitrators at the WTO in Switzerland
Gift this article