No urgent interest in infringing trade name

The Central Netherlands District Court ruled on October 21, 2025 (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2025:5464) that the plaintiff had no compelling interest in claims about the breach of her trade name. However, a compelling interest is a requirement in a summary proceedings. The claims of the plaintiff (BIGBAGSTORE.NL) against the defendant (BIGBAGSTORE.EU) were therefore dismissed for lack of urgency. Jim de Rouw discusses the case. He deals with cases concerning the intellectual property, including the trade name law. He is also engaged in procedural law.

Sales of Big Bags for construction under the name BigBagStore

Both plaintiff and defendant are companies that sell FIBs (‘big bag’), pallets, (waste) bags and accessories for use in the construction. The plaintiff does so in the Netherlands under the trade name BIGBAGSTORE.NL, the defendant is based in Germany and does so under the trade name BIGBAGSTORE.EU. With that domain name and identical trade name, it also operates in the Netherlands. The plaintiff claims that the defendant thereby infringes its trade name. It invokes Article 5 Trade Name Act. This stipulates that it is prohibited to use a trade name that is identical to or only slightly different from an already existing trade name. However, there must then be a likelihood of confusion. To this end, the nature of the companies must be considered, among other things. Their place of establishment is also important. This was the case according to BIGBAGSTORE.NL. The Court therefore requested the Court in preliminary relief proceedings to order BIGBAGSTORE.EU to stop the infringement on its trade name.

Urgent interest in IP cases

To successfully bring an interlocutory appeal, the plaintiff is required to have a compelling interest in his or her claims. In IP cases, the basic principle is that the urgent interest is given as long as the alleged infringement continues. However, if insufficient action is taken against such infringement, this may be an indication that a plaintiff's interest clearly does not require injunctive relief. See for this the judgments of the District Court of The Hague of March 29, 2021 (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:2986) and November 15, 2016 ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2016:13741).

BIGBAGSTORE.NL has no urgent interest in its claims

In the case between plaintiff and defendant, the preliminary injunction judge found that there was infringement of plaintiff's trade name. As a result, there is normally an urgent interest to stop infringement of that trade name. However, circumstances dictate otherwise this time. It is stranded for BIGBAGSTORE.NL in this case as it would not have an urgent interest in its claims. To this end, the interim relief judge stated that the urgent interest must be such that it cannot await the outcome of proceedings on the merits. However, the interim relief judge stated that BIGBAGSTORE.NL has not made this plausible.

Infringement of trade name law has long been in play

The preliminary injunction judge:

“(...) since the plaintiff discovered on April 29, 2022 that Rugo uses the same trade name and operates in the Netherlands. From then on, [plaintiff] received messages from customers confusing the parties” companies. On June 21, 2023, [plaintiff] sent a summons letter to Rugo requesting it to cease using the trade name. This received a negative response. Subsequently, [plaintiff] let the matter rest for a long time. It was not until December 18, 2024 that another summons letter was sent, followed by further correspondence in January and May 2025."

The preliminary injunction judge finds that BIGBAGSTORE.NL waited too long. He ruled that:

“It follows from this course of events that [plaintiff] waited over 3.5 years to take legal action, even though the alleged confusion was discovered as early as 2022. [plaintiff] gives two reasons for this lapse of time. First, [plaintiff] indicates that it took so long because settlement negotiations were ongoing. Rugo disputes that and the documents submitted do not show any such negotiations. In addition, [plaintiff] explained that the number of instances of confusion decreased after the summons in 2023 and increased again in 2024, so there would now be urgency. This argument also fails. Rugo has correctly pointed to the complaint summary submitted by [plaintiff] from production 5 which shows that in 2024 complaints were received only from foreign parties. In 2025 there were only two complaints of confusion. An increase of confusion in the Netherlands (in 2024 and/or 2025) has therefore not become plausible.”

Lawyer for trade name infringement

When your trade name is infringed, it is important to act quickly and appropriately. This ruling demonstrates that once again. Although there is also something to be said about the content of the ruling (for example, it is defensible that precisely because of the lapse of time, the pressure and thus the urgency has only increased), it is important to be well advised about the steps to be taken if you discover an infringement. Adequate action is also important if you are sued for infringement. Indeed, the ruling also shows that the loser has a hefty court cost order (over€ 14k) around the ears.