• 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
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • 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  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

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

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

  • 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
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. 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:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

22. February 2022
PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

8. February 2022
Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

3. February 2022
PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

1. February 2022
Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

19. January 2022
Computer Data identification declared invalid

Computer Data identification declared invalid

Contact us or request a call back

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

Footer

Contact

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 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

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

Contact Form

 

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

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

Kontaktformular

 

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

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