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

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • 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. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Clara Elinor Grünewald
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Press release regarding injunctive relief: illegal comparative advertising?

28. May 2019

May a press release inform that a competitor has manufactured his product using illegal recipes and trade secrets and has been sentenced to injunctive relief by a higher court? Yes, according to ruling of Federal Supreme Court, that denied illegal comparative advertising in this case.

enforcement of injunctive reliefWith this ruling in the “Knochenzement III proceedings” (I ZR 254/16), the Federal Supreme Court has rendered an importent ruling in the area of tension between inadmissible comparative advertising and the enforcement of an injunction due to patent infringement and illegal use of trade secrets.

The Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof (BGH)) ruled that a competitor may have a legitimate interest in informing its customers – or potential customers – about the misconduct of the competitor found by the court. This is not per se inadmissible comparative advertising.
The admissibility of such allegations is determined by the standards laid down in Section 6.2 No. 5 UWG (German Fair Trade Practices Act, in German: Gesetz gegen den Unlauteren Wettbewerb, UWG). The decisive factor was the overall assessment, in particular taking into account the content and form of the statement as well as the possibilities for understanding of the public in question.

Background

The parties are competitors in the distribution of bone cements (in German: Knochenzement). The defendant belongs to the H. Group and initially manufactured bone cements for the plaintiff, but ended this cooperation in August 2005 and has since sold its own bone cements.
Following the defendant’s dismissal, the plaintiff sold its own bone cements until 2014 – which, according to the defendant’s accusation, were developed and manufactured under illegal use of its own trade secrets. The final judgment of the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main of 5 June 2014 (6 U 15/13) prohibited the applicant from manufacturing and marketing its bone cements using specifications of certain ingredients which the court in Frankfurt regarded as trade secrets of the defendant.

Since September 2014, the plaintiff has been selling “H.” bone cements manufactured by the company Z.. These cements are not subject to the injunction relief of the Court of Frankfurt. Almost simultaneously, on August 21, 2014, the defendant issued a press release informing about the plaintiff’s illegal use of trade secrets and the ruling of the court in Frankfurt. The plaintiff contests the allegations contained in the press release as unfair disparagement of a competitor and brought an action seeking an order prohibiting this.

Comparative advertising may be permitted

The Federal Supreme Court rejected this action. Indeed, a press release must be regarded as comparative advertising within the meaning of Paragraph 6(1) of the UWG, and it is also a matter of sufficiently interchangeable products offered by concrete competitors, which is the prerequisite for the application of Paragraph 6 of the UWG.

However, the BGH clarified that the dispute did not concern purely company-related advertising. The information was about the illegal use of trade secrets related to the concrete product bone cement, which indirectly addresses the efficiency and professional competence of the plaintiff’s personnel. The BGH sees this as a point of view which has an influence on the quality of the products. The fact of the reduction within the meaning of Paragraph 6(2)(5) of the UWG is therefore not applicable. In cases of doubt, the decisive factor is whether the traffic in question will extract from the circumstances compared information useful for its purchase decision.

Factual press release: unfair disparagement of a competitor?

The disputed press release is certainly not to be seen as an unfair disparagement of a competitor pursuant to Section 6.2 No. 2 UWG, as the plaintiff asserted. A disparagement in the sense of this provision presupposes more than the immanent comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the compared products in a critical advertising comparison.

The BGH ruled that the decisive factor was whether the challenged advertising statement was still within the limits of a factual discussion or already represented a general devaluation of the foreign products. However, the press release was limited to a factual tone and informed about undisputedly applicable circumstances. There were no generally derogatory or derogatory statements. By making public the assessment of a national supreme court, the defendant provided the relevant public with a particularly factual and verifiable basis for an informed decision.

The German Supreme Court pointed out that the products in question were complex to manufacture and, because of their use in the field of medicine, particularly safety-sensitive products, and that the supplier’s own performance was therefore decisive for an informed demand decision.

The BGH ruled that the defendant was entitled to that right of expression in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and that, without prejudice to that right, it had the possibility of enforcing the prohibitions on production and distribution imposed by the courts. The former decision in the first instance is to be amended and the action for prohibition of the allegations contained in the press release is dismissed.

 

May we help to enforce your property rights?

Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law. We take action to stop current patent infringements and counterfeiting or the illegal use of creative works.

 

 

Sources:

Judgment of BGH I ZR 254/16 “Knochenzement III” (in German)

Image:

PublicDomainPictures /pixabay.com / CCO License  

  • share  14 
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconPatent Law Tag iconpatent infringement,  judgement,  injunctive relief,  German case law,  Federal Supreme Court,  trade secrets,  Knochenzement III,  bones cement,  illegal use of trade secrets,  press release,  disparagement,  factual tone,  unfair disparagement,  competitor,  comparative advertising,  illegal comparative advertising,  German Fair Trade Practices Act,  UWG,  Knochenzement

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Patent Law

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
This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Recent Posts

  • Bacardi wins in trademark dispute Vodka 42 BELOW 20. January 2021
  • HALLOUMI vs. BBQLOUMI: Cyprus loses again in trademark dispute 20. January 2021
  • Short word marks and similarity: First letter is not everything 19. January 2021
  • Where in Europe is a patent application worthwhile? 18. January 2021

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:

18. January 2021
Where in Europe is a patent application worthwhile?

Where in Europe is a patent application worthwhile?

15. January 2021
BGH ‘Cigarette package’: Extension of undisclosed features in EU patent

BGH ‘Cigarette package’: Extension of undisclosed features in EU patent

11. January 2021
Patent for coding of audio signals confirmed by German BPatG

Patent for coding of audio signals confirmed by German BPatG

8. January 2021
GAIA-X: German funding program for European Cloud

GAIA-X: German funding program for European Cloud

5. January 2021
Employee invention of managing directors or board members?

Employee invention of managing directors or board members?

4. January 2021
4IR and industry 4.0: Statistics of International Patent Applications

4IR and industry 4.0: Statistics of International Patent Applications

Footer

Contact

Franklinstr. 61-63
D-60486 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Customer Reviews

Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB Patentrecht, Markenrecht, Eigentum hat 4,78 von 5 Sternen 23 Bewertungen auf ProvenExpert.com

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
  • Info secure emails
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Kontaktformular

 

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

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

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Contact Form

 

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

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

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form