Stikker versus Nokia: Judge rejects claim for breach of the non-disclosure agreement
Court The Hague, 6 June 2005, KG 05/435, Stikker.com versus Nokia. Case about protection of Ideas and Knowledge and Non-Disclosure Agreements.
‘Stikker.com’, is an internet company aimed at maintaining on the internet a system devised by the company’s owners to return the lost and found to the rightful owner. At the end of 2003, Stikker initiated the development of a system which with the aid of internet facilities helps to distinguish between the originals and (infringing) copies. This product was discussed with Nokia and Stikker and Nokia signed a standard Nokia Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) early 2004.
Stikker subsequently presented the developed system to Nokia. Towards the end of 2004, Nokia issued a press release announcing a new program in fight against counterfeit Nokia batteries. Following that release, Stikker informed Nokia of Stikker’s wish to discuss the conditions for use of the Stikker program. When Nokia failed to respond to that invitation Stikker informed Nokia that Nokia was in breach of the agreement laid down in the NDA.
Meanwhile Stikker also admits to the fact that a considerable part of that which was presented to Nokia had already been developed by Nokia itself in its so-called “Britney-project” in November 2003. The most important question at this point is whether Nokia, as Nokia itself infers, independently (and after the fact) developed the idea to advise the consumer, in case a correct but previously used code has been entered, what to do depending on the fact whether or not the consumer disclosed the code himself.
The judge in interlocutory proceedings argues that this assertion by Nokia is not necessarily implausible and that it cannot be excluded that Nokia can, in relevant arbitration, sufficiently substantiate its assertion of the independent development of this concept. These interlocutory proceedings offer no room however for the provision of further proof, for which a hearing of witnesses seems a necessity.
On the other hand, the judge in interlocutory proceedings was at present not convinced by Nokia’s argument that Nokia cannot be considered in violation of the NDA because it did not actually pose the question whether or not the consumer himself disclosed the code, but merely informs or advises as the case may be the consumer on how to act in such circumstances. Nonetheless, this defence is by no means prospectless, thereby adding to the uncertainty of the outcome of an arbitration to be initiated.
The judge in interlocutory proceedings waives all claims made by Stikker. Read the judgement here.
