Was the infringement substantiated?

SeeYou designs and manufactures personalized memorial jewelry. These pieces incorporate personal items such as ashes, breast milk, hair, baby teeth, fingerprints, and photographs. The jewelry is sold via the company’s own website and more than 700 retail outlets.

In practice

The defendant also designs memorial jewelry and previously purchased items from SeeYou. SeeYou, presumably unexpectedly, raided the defendant’s store. Deliveries were then stopped. SeeYou alleges copyright infringement and slavish imitation.

The defendant has strongly contested these allegations. According to Article 111(3) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, it was incumbent upon SeeYou to specify these defenses in the summons. It should also have provided evidence to support its claims.

The summons

The summons, which was issued more than seven months after the letter of demand, lacks this substantiation. It does not explain what the characteristics are and how the jewelry differs from other jewelry on the market (the ‘Umfeld’). Nor does it mention the defenses put forward in the letter of demand and the response to it. Nor is any reference made to supporting documents. It was not until June 16, 2025, more than six weeks after the summons, that SeeYou submitted 30 appendices—without explanation.

The summons compares 19 pieces of jewelry from SeeYou with those of the defendant. Each one is described as an ‘exact copy’, stating that ‘all characteristic features have been copied’ and that they give an ‘identical or very similar overall impression’. However, there is no factual substantiation of what these characteristic features are. For example, the fact that both parties use breast milk is a concept and is not covered by copyright.

The statement of defense

The statement of defense also fails to provide a factual explanation of the copyright-protected elements. Repeated questioning only resulted in references to the shape of the setting—a circle, clover, or heart containing the epoxy resin memorial. However, these shapes are common in other jewelry on the market (the disputed environment).

Pursuant to Article 120(4) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, the court may attach consequences to non-compliance with the obligations under Article 111(3) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure. SeeYou’s claims are therefore dismissed. SeeYou is ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings, based on the maximum rate (€1,019) and the indicative rate for IP cases: €15,000. (Judgment of the District Court of The Hague, June 26, 2025)

Questions

Do you have any questions as a result of this article? If so, please contact one of our attorneys by email, phone or fill out the contact form for a no-obligation initial consultation. We are happy to think along with you.