• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Top smartphones on the best network: Unique selling advertising?

15. June 2021

Was the advertising statement ‘Top smartphones in the best network’ by Deutsche Telekom a unique selling proposition or an advertisement with a test result? The Higher Regional Court of Hamburg ruled that the reference to a test seal must already be visible on the first accessible website.

Telekom Werbung 'im besten Netz'

The Higher Regional Court of Hamburg (OLG Hamburg) ruled on an advertisement of Deutsche Telekom (17.12.2020, 15 U 129/19), which was placed in Germany shortly before Christmas 2020. Products and services were advertised with the statement “Best Huawei top smartphones in the best network with €100 cashback”.

A cease-and-desist letter was filed against this advertisement, but Telekom refused to issue the requested cease-and-desist declaration. Subsequently, this case was heard by the Hamburg Higher Regional Court. According to § 8 (1) UWG, anyone who carries out a commercial act that is illegal according to § 3 UWG can be sued for injunctive relief if there is a risk of repetition. Pursuant to § 8 (3 no. 1) UWG, every competitor is entitled to such a claim.

The OLG also commented in principle on the relevance of the question whether an advertising statement such as the one at issue, like ‘ Top Smartphones in the best network ‘, is to be regarded as a unique selling proposition or as a test reference advertisement. In contrast to a test reference advertisement, in which a quality claim is made but which cannot be proven by the advertiser himself, special requirements are placed on a unique position claim in an advertising statement.

Unique position claim must really be true

The case law of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) states that a unique position claim is only permissible if the advertising claim is true – and if the advertiser has a clear advantage over its competitors and the advantage offers the prospect of a certain consistency (BGH, GRUR 2003, 800, 803 – Schachcomputerkatalog; BGH, GRUR 2002, 182, 184 – Das Beste jeden Morgen). Otherwise, there was a risk of misleading.

Incidentally, a claim of a unique position is not only made if the advertiser claims to have no competitor at all, i.e. to “stand alone” in the literal sense of the word, but also if he expresses that he outperforms his competitors.

An “objective connection” within the meaning of § 2 (1)  UWG also exists in the case of pure attention-grabbing advertising (image advertising), which does not even have to address the specific range of goods and services, but rather serves to make the name of the advertising company known to the public or to increase its public awareness and thus indirectly to promote its sales.

Pursuant to § 5 (1(2)) UWG, a commercial act is also misleading if it contains information about essential characteristics of the goods that is suitable for deception. This also includes the results of tests of goods and services.

But was this the case with Telekom’s advertisement with the slogan ‘ Top Smartphones in the best network ‘ – or did the statement “in the best network” refer to test results of the magazines “CHIP” and “connect”, as Telekom claimed?

A must: reference to the test seal on the first retrievable internet page

The OLG Hamburg denied this. The challenged advertisement of Telekom was a unique selling proposition, the court ruled. The wording of the statement “in the best network” leaves it open whether this is a test result or the defendant’s own assessment, the court explained. Unlike an advertisement with the express designation “test winner”, the statement “in the best network” only establishes a reference to a test result by displaying a test seal. However, there was no such seal on the first website accessible to the consumer.

In order to get to the corresponding test seal, the consumer in the case of the Telekom advertisement first had to click on the button “To the offers”, thus opening a new page and scrolling down slightly. This link was not sufficient to assume that the consumer perceived the advertising statement “in the best network” on the first internet page as advertising with a test result, the OLG Hamburg ruled.

Explanation of the advertising statement in the clickable asterisk

Telekom argued in vain that the advertising statement in dispute had been published in the advertisement “Best Huawei Top Smartphones in the best network with € 100 cashback” and that a clickable asterisk had been placed at the end of the word cashback. The targeted public expected to receive more detailed information on the following three topics when clicking on the asterisk: 1. “the Huawei top smartphones mentioned”, 2. “the best network” and 3. “100 € cashback”. This was indeed the case, because all this information was “provided on the downstream page”, Telekom argued.

However, the Hamburg Higher Regional Court rejected this objection. It was thus proven once again that it was only on the downstream page that the aforementioned information was contained. And the two test seals relevant in relation to “in the best network” were probably accessible anyway via the button “To the offers”, but not via the asterisk reference.

Risk of repetition

The Higher Regional Court of Hamburg therefore ruled that the Telekom advertisement ‘ Top Smartphones in the best network ‘ was a unique selling proposition that was inadmissible. Even more, the OLG Hamburg also ruled that there was a risk of repetition.

According to BGH case law, the mere cessation of advertising is not sufficient if the advertising can be resumed at any time without major effort. Even the cessation of the production of the product that was unfairly advertised and even the cessation of business of the debtor acting in an anti-competitive manner are not sufficient without further ado for the lapse of the risk of repetition (see BGH, GRUR 1998, 1045, 1046 – Brennwertkessel; BGH, GRUR 2001, 453, 455 – TCM-Zentrum; BGH, GRUR 2016, 88 marginal no. 51 – Deltamethrin). Similarly, a risk of repetition is not eliminated if there are purely factual changes. In the absence of a cease-and-desist declaration with a penalty clause, a risk of repetition was to be assumed as long as all likelihood of a resumption of the unlawful conduct by the infringer had not been eliminated (BGH, GRUR 1988, 38, 39 – Leichenaufbewahrung).

Are you also looking for protection for your product?

Our lawyers have many years of expertise in the entire field of intellectual property – trade marks, designs and patents – as well as in competition law and are entitled to represent you before any court – in Germany and internationally.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you are interested.


 

Source for text and image:

Judgement of OLG Hamburg, 17.12.2020, 15 U 129/19

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconCopyright Tag icon§ 3 UWG,  § 8 para. 1 UWG,  advertising,  advertising with test seal,  Beste Huawei,  BGH risk of repetition,  claim to unique position,  declaration to cease and desist,  declaration to cease and desist with penalty clause,  in the best network,  risk of repetition,  Telekom,  Telekom advertising,  test advertisement,  top smartphones in the best network,  Warning notice

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Copyright

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

25. October 2021
ECJ: decompiling software to correct bugs

ECJ: decompiling software to correct bugs

26. August 2021
Chinese VW-Käfer causes uproar – design theft?

Chinese VW-Käfer causes uproar – design theft?

22. June 2021
ECJ: (No) liability of Youtube/Google for infringing content

ECJ: (No) liability of Youtube/Google for infringing content

6. April 2021
Google vs. Oracle: Java API code falls under fair use!

Google vs. Oracle: Java API code falls under fair use!

23. March 2021
ECJ: Digital framing of works protected by copyright

ECJ: Digital framing of works protected by copyright

8. February 2021
Stake hammered into German copyright law on actor’s fee

Stake hammered into German copyright law on actor’s fee

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© MD LEGAL Patentanwalt, European Patent Attorney PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.