LG Darmstadt; 2017-11-30; 23 O 345/16
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LGDARMS:2017:1130.23O345.16.00
Date: 2017-11-30
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82017DE1130(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case dealt with by the Landgericht Darmstadt (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) concerned a cease and desist claim based on antitrust laws with a relation to an advertising statement.
The parties to the dispute were the defendant domiciled in the United Kingdom and the plaintiff domiciled in Germany, both manufacturers and sellers of trolley suitcases and other luggage.
For its series of suitcases made from very light, flexible and durable materials, the defendant was using the description ‘World’s Lightest’. However, not all suitcases of the respective series were lighter than the competitor’s products with comparable dimensions. Through its legal representative, the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant calling on the defendant to make a binding declaration to cease and desist from using the said description in its advertisement activities across Europe, subject to a contractual penalty, and stipulated a deadline for doing so. After the defendant failed to make such a declaration, the plaintiff filed an action with the Court of First Instance seeking that court forbid the defendant to promote in Germany suitcases and/or suitcase series using the description ‘World’s Lightest’. The defendant requested that the court dismiss the action.
The international jurisdiction followed from Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) which stipulates that a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur.
The Court of First Instance concluded that the cease and desist claim was justified and decided in favour of the plaintiff. The description ‘World’s Lightest’ used by the defendant for its suitcase series represented an unfair and misleading statement for the recipients of the advertisement would understand that the whole series consisted of the world’s lightest suitcases. That not every suitcase of this series was lighter than the relevant products of the competitors was undoubtful. The defendant also advertised online. The suitcase of the defendant which could be ordered through the German websites and were promoted with the respective statement and labelled as such when delivered to Germany. Thus, the preconditions laid out in Article 5 of the UWG (2) for the existence of the usage within commercial practise had been fulfilled.
Court of First Instance upheld the action and decided in favour of the plaintiff’s request.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (Act against Unfair Competition).