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

News of Health Hoglund joining Sisvel and the Delhi High Court staying a $2.2 million decree in favour of Philips were also among the top talking points
The firm is continuing its aggressive IP hiring streak with the addition of partner Matthew Rizzolo
Pantech counsel Shogo Matsunaga speaks exclusively to Managing IP about how his team proved Google’s unwillingness, and ultimately secured a landmark SEP settlement
New partners, including the firm’s first female head of a department, are eyeing a deeper focus on client understanding
Chunguang Hu of China PAT explains why his ‘insider’ experience as a patent examiner benefits clients and why he wants to debunk the myth that IP has limited value in China
Essenese Obhan shares his expansion plans and vision of creating a ‘one-stop shop’ for clients after Indian firms Obhan & Associates and Mason & Associates joined forces
From AI and the UPC to troublesome trademarks in China, experts name the IP trends likely to dominate 2026
Colm Murphy says he is keen to help clients navigate cross-border IP challenges in Europe
With 2025 behind us, US practitioners sit down with Managing IP to discuss the major IP moments from the year and what to expect in 2026
Large-scale transatlantic mergers will give US entities a strong foothold at the UPC, and could spark further fragmentation of European patent practices
Gift this article