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

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