LD Duesseldorf, Order, December 19, 2025, UPC_CFI_515_2025

1. Key takeaways

No Default Decision Despite Non-Response

Under R. 209.1(a) RoP, the Court has discretion to inform the defendant of an application for provisional measures and to invite an objection within a specified time limit. If the defendant fails to lodge or substantiate such an objection, as occurred in this case, the Court may decide the application on the basis of the applicant's submissions by issuing a regular order in the preliminary injunction proceedings.

The court found that a decision by default under R. 355.1(a) RoP is not appropriate in this situation. First, the Rules on provisional measures (R. 205 et seq. RoP) do not provide for a default decision in this procedural constellation. Second, a regular order better reflects the balance of interests: the defendant has been given the opportunity to object and has chosen not to do so, and there is therefore no justification for granting the procedural advantages linked to a default decision,