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 2025

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

New members of the Access Advance patent pool and Harvard University coming under fire were also among the top talking points
Team from Graham Watt & Co will join Beck Greener’s London office
The firm reported a small uptick in overall revenue and profit per equity partner, while its IP team secured notable life sciences victories
Paul Ainsworth, who secured a settlement for his client in a patent dispute, says the case shows why medical claims by dietary supplement companies can threaten IP rights
Boies Schiller Flexner joins forces with Grünecker to target Skechers in Europe following US lawsuit
Helen Mutimer discusses how the firm’s IP advisory services are filling a gap in the market, and why life sciences work is soaring
In major recent developments, a confidentiality request was rejected, Samsung and its representative A&O Shearman secured a partial win, and EIP made a new hire
Tomas Wässingbo joins us for our ‘Five minutes with’ series to explain why he wants to change the perception around designs
PepsiCo was represented by PwC, while the Australian Taxation Office was advised by Australian-headquartered law firm MinterEllison
The firm said revenue from its ‘refreshed and expanded’ IP team increased by 4% in FY25
Gift this article