The Amsterdam Court of Appeal recently rendered a landmark judgment that the claims brought by claim vehicle CDC against Kemira Chemicals Oy were not time barred. The court's judgment provides additional legal certainty in the field of private antitrust enforcement. If upheld before the Supreme Court, this ruling will set a new standard wherein (Dutch) courts will be able to extend or even set aside applicable limitation rules from national regimes in follow-on proceedings.
In preliminary proceedings, The Hague District Court recently assessed whether an injunction could be granted against an Irish director of a company based in Ireland in relation to a copyright infringement in the Netherlands. This judgment is a useful reminder that company directors who are not domiciled in the Netherlands can be liable under Dutch law on directors' liability when offering infringing products in the Netherlands.
The Supreme Court recently requested a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) concerning the competence of district courts in summary proceedings relating to EU Community designs. An immediate consequence of the ECJ's decision is that district courts other than the one in The Hague will be unable to provide provisional measures in cases relating to EU trademarks.
The Netherlands has always been at the forefront of the European Union in enabling collective redress for affected parties in mass damages cases. Since 1994, claims organisations have been able to pursue legal action on behalf of affected parties. However, the Civil Code prohibited claims organisations from pursuing damages claims. This practice has now changed significantly following the entry into force of the Act on the Resolution of Mass Claims in Collective Action.
The Hague District Court recently rendered a judgment regarding an inventor's failure to cooperate with the exploitation of his patents. The claimant had alleged that the defendant's refusal to cooperate with the transfer of the patent to a foundation (which would have subsequently granted the claimant a licence) had prevented it from exploiting the patent, including sub-licensing it to third parties.