UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: May 30, 2025

UPC_CFI_479/2025

PIECE OF FURNITURE IN WHICH A WASHING MACHINE CAN BE PLACED AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURE THEREOF

Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresThe Hague LDProvisional measuresCase Closed
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. obtained a preliminary injunction from The Hague Local Division against IBBH, BEGA Consult, BEGA BBK, and NEG Novex (Defendants 2-5) for infringement of EP 3 522 755 B1, covering washing machine cabinet furniture. The Court found the Laundreezy and Respekta Clara cabinets more likely than not infringing, and ordered injunctions, recall, and supply-chain information disclosure across all UPC states, with EUR 56,000 in legal costs awarded jointly against the defendants.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Defendants' Laundreezy and Respekta Clara washing machine cabinets fall within the scope of EP 3 522 755 B1

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA; R. 206 RoP

    Note: Court found it more likely than not that both product lines infringe the patent, granting injunctions against Defendants 2-5.

  • Urgency and necessity for provisional measures to stop ongoing infringement

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62(1) UPCA; R. 206 RoP

    Note: Court accepted urgency and granted injunction covering all UPC Contracting Member States.

  • Information order necessary to stop further infringement (supply chain disclosure)

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 354 RoP; Art. 62 UPCA

    Note: Court granted information orders on origin and distribution channels but limited scope to cessation of infringement, not damages calculation.

  • Recall order warranted to retrieve infringing products from professional customers

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA

    Note: Court ordered a recall letter to all professional customers in UPC Contracting Member States.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Information order extending to prices and numbers of cabinets sold (for damages calculation)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA; R. 206 RoP

    Reason: Court found no urgency or necessity for disclosure of commercial data relating to damages quantification at the provisional measures stage.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
urgency and necessity for provisional measurespreliminary assessment of infringement (more likely than not)scope of information orders limited to cessation of infringementjoint and several liability of defendants for costsrecall orders as provisional measure

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

No specific claim construction disputes are recorded in the excerpt. The Court applied EP 3 522 755 B1 claim scope to both the Laundreezy and Respekta Clara products and found them to fall within it.