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

Sources say the judge could return to a disputes or mediation-focussed role, though others have questioned whether the Texas court will remain a litigation hotspot in his absence
Sheppard, which has hired 14 IP partners in the last 12 months, has cited client demand for expert counsel in SEP, ITC, and district court disputes
Tingxi Huo joins our ‘Five minutes with’ series to discuss boosting the value of clients’ IP and the importance of reflection
Hefty legal teams assembled for a three-day hearing in what was the court’s first foray into SEPs since Unwired Planet v Huawei
IP firm's new base will be located inside the tallest office space in the UK's ‘second city’
Practitioners at four firms across Asia and Europe share the do’s and don’ts of mindful networking ahead of the INTA Annual Meeting
Brand Action explains why the IP community can be a force for good in the world as thousands of professionals prepare to head to London for INTA’s Annual Meeting
The firm, which has also hired a senior trademark leader to lead operations in the region, believes greater China to be one of the most important IP jurisdictions
Attorneys at Gibson Dunn share why plaintiffs’ growing reliance on DMCA anti-circumvention claims in AI scraping cases exposes a critical vulnerability
Tom Carver, who spent the last 18 months sailing the Mediterranean, tells Managing IP why he’s ready to return to land
Gift this article