Source: http://anwalthannover.com/en/must-be-printed-works-in-advertising-as-a-display-sponsored-clearly-not-enough/
Timestamp: 2017-11-18 04:53:32
Document Index: 130760691

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', 'BGH', '§ 8', 'BGH', '§ 5', '§ 4', '§ 5', '§ 5', 'BGH', '§ 14', '§ 23', 'Art. 8', '§ 19', '§ 5', 'BGH', 'BGH', 'Art 101', 'Art 7', '§ 89', '§ 43', '§ 5', '§ 5', 'BGH', '§ 5']

Werbung in Druckwerken muss als "Anzeige" be clearly marked, "sponsored by" not enough. - Attorney Hanover: horak . Lawyers, Georgstr. 48, 30159 Hanover, Fund: 0511/357 356-0, Fax: 0511/357 356-29
Attorney Hanover: horak . Lawyers, Georgstr. 48, 30159 Hanover, Fund: 0511/357 356-0, Fax: 0511/357 356-29
Lawyers, Specialist Solicitors firm with headquarters in Hanover, opposite the Opera in Hanover
RA time
GmbH managing
Transport Law / forwarding law
Legal aid / subsidy law
Boden Right
Warranty, Warranty, Product Liability
Naming violation
The selfsame law
Lawyer / in
Advertising in print works has as “Display” be clearly marked, “sponsored by” not enough.
admin / Abmahnkosten, Warning, Subscribers, Lawyer, Attorney Hanover, Law Firm, Injunctive, Cease and desist, Cease and desist declaration, Unternehmer, Judgment, UWG, Consumer Protection, Advertising Law, Werbung, Wettbewerber, Competition Law, Competition clause, Wettbewerbsverletzung, Competition Report, anticompetitive, Competitive nature, Re-offending, Wirtschaft Recht /	Warning, Lawyer, Display, Right, Court, redaktionelle Beiträge, Judgment, UWG, Advertising Law, Werbung, Competition Law, Zeitung /
The inter alia for the Competition Law responsible I. Civil Division of the Federal Court held today, that a press undertaking one of a company paid editorial article in a newspaper clearly with the term “Display” mark must.
The applicant is the “Stuttgart weekly” out. The defendant is a publisher of free advertising circular “GOOD NEWS”. She has published in the June issue 2009 two contributions, for which they had received from sponsors for a fee. This had the defendant with the notice “sponsored by” made and graphically highlighted indication of the advertising company indicated.
The applicant considers, dieses Verhalten verstoße gegen § 4 No.. 11 UWG in conjunction with § 10 Landespressegesetz Baden-Württemberg (LPresseG BW)*, because the publications were not sufficiently labeled as an advertisement. It has therefore taken the defendant to cease and desist.
The district court ordered the defendant in the terms sought. The appeal is directed against them remained without success. The Bundesgerichtshof has referred the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union, ob die Vorschrift des § 10 LPresseG BW, which also serves to protect the independence of the press in addition to the protection of consumers and to some extent more stringent requirements on the identification of editorial advertising as Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices, is consistent with this Directive. The Court of Justice of the European Union has decided this, that is not open for the present case the constellation of the scope of the Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices.
The Federal Court dismissed the appeal by the Respondent, confirming the pronounced by the courts ban. According to the findings of the court the defendant had received a fee for the publication of the two editorial put up posts. § 10 LPresseG BW does not require, that the fee has been paid for a specific content of the publication or for a pre-established products. It just depends on, that the publisher of a periodical work has received remuneration for a publication.
The strict order of the identification of advertisements is violated, when the precise concept of “Display” is avoided and instead opted for a fuzzy concept. The identification of the posts with the words “sponsored by” therefore not enough to clarify the nature of the display publications.
Judgment of 6. February 2014 ­ I ZR 2/11 ­ GOOD NEWS II
LG Stuttgart – Judgment of 27. More 2010 ­ 35 The 80/09 KfH
OLG Stuttgart – Judgment of 15. December 2010 ­ 4 You 112/10
BGH, Decision of 19. July 2012 ­ I ZR 2/11, Wheat 2012, 1056 = WRP 2012, 1219 ­ GOOD NEWS I
ECJ, Judgment of 17. October 2013 ­ C­391/12, Wheat 2013, 1245 = WRP 2013, 1575
If the publisher of a periodical work or the person responsible (§ 8 Abs. 2 Sentence 4) receive a fee for publication, required or can promise, he has this publication, insofar as it is not generally seen as already indicated by arrangement and design, clearly with the word “Display” to designate.
Those: BGH
"From the South Stand in the City Council":BVB obtains preliminary injunction against the party election advertising RIGHTS
Sweepstakes coupling of television advertising with “BLISS WEEKS” with purchase of 5 Packs of 1 EUR in a raffle on 100 times 5000 EUR participate: Allowed and not wiettbewerbswidirg
If an opening advertising combined with a crossed-out price, so there is an implied misrepresentation, namely the indication of a price advantage within the meaning of § 5 Abs. 1 Sentence 2 No.. 2 UWG, however not the withholding of essential information within the meaning of § 4 No.. 4 oder des § 5a Abs. 2 UWG, as it may be with the application of a non-temporary "introduction price" of the case
An approved pesticide loses with the removal of its packaging its marketability – Insecticide with flonicamid
You can also spot-anticompetitive, as other praise carefree enjoyment of light products
« Does the agent violated a non-compete, can provide the entrepreneur entitled to a right of access to the ban unconstitutional for competitors mediated transactions	» Federal Association of German Book, Newspaper- and magazine wholesalers e. In. commits anti-competitive horizontal restriction of competition, as there is a discount- and conditions of competition between the press wholesalers and publishers or. National distributors prevents
Last reply was 7. February 2014
View 7. February 2014
Advertising in print works has as “Display” be clearly marked, “sponsored by” not enough. http://t.co/vJH7GPZfh7
Fund 0511.357 356.0
Advocate Hannover
Verwirkung markenrechtlicher Ansprüche nach langer Zeit (17 Years) des Nebeneinander der Produkt (Pfefferspray)
1. Das Urteil des Gerichts der Europäischen Union vom 25. November 2014, Simba Toys/HABM – Seven Towns (Form eines Würfels mit Seiten mit einer Gitterstruktur) (T‑450/09, EU:T:2014:983), is canceled. 2. Die Entscheidung der Zweiten Beschwerdekammer des Amts der Europäischen Union für geistiges Eigentum (EUIPO) from 1. September 2009 (Sache R 1526/2008‑2) zu einem Nichtigkeitsverfahren zwischen der Simba Toys […]
a) An die für die Aufrechterhaltung eines Unternehmenskennzeichenrechts im Sinne des § 5 Abs. 2 Sentence 1 MarkenG erforderliche Zeichenbenutzung sind keine höhe-ren Anforderungen zu stellen als an die für seine anfängliche Entstehung erforder-lichen Benutzungshandlungen. b) Das Fehlen einer für den Geschäftsbetrieb erforderlichen behördlichen Erlaubnis oder mangelndes Bemühen um ihre Erlangung lassen für sich genommen […]
Besteht zwischen einer verkehrsdurchgesetzten dreidimensionalen Klagemarke und der beanstandeten, für identische Waren verwendeten Form eine hochgradige Zeichenähnlichkeit, so ist im Regelfall davon auszugehen, dass der Verkehr nicht nur die Form der Klagemarke, sondern auch die angegriffene Gestaltung als herkunftshinweisend wahrnimmt. JUDGMENT BGH I ZR 23/14 from 21. October 2015 – Bounty MarkenG § 14 Abs. […]
Zulässige Markenverletzung durch Werbung als „Porsche … mit TECHART-Umbau“, because this is a quality description
a) A pursuant to § 23 No.. 2 Trademark permissible indication exists, when a vehicle (here: Porsche) after its marketing of a tuning company (here: TECHART) changed and the altered vehicle is offered by this then under the designation of the manufacturer's trademark and the name of the tuning company for sale (here: „Porsche … mit TECHART-Umbau“), sofern […]
Deutsches Bankgeheimnis rechtswidrig, das es einem Bankinstitut unbegrenzt und bedingungslos gestattet, eine Auskunft nach Art. 8 Abs. 1 For sure. c der Richtlinie zu Geistigem und gewerblichem Eigentum über Namen und Anschrift eines Kontoinhabers unter Berufung auf das Bankgeheimnis zu verweigern. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Vierte Kammer) 16. July 2015(*) „Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung – Geistiges und gewerbliches […]
Wilkinson darf keine Rasierklingeneinheiten für Nassrasierer vertreiben, die auf den Nassrasierer “Gillette Mach 3” von Gillette passen (Patent infringement).
Die Rasierklingeneinheit des Nassrasieres “Gillette Mach” darf nicht nachgemacht werden Mit Urteil vom 18. July 2017 (4a O 66/17) hat die 4a-Patentkammer des Landgerichts Düsseldorf der Wilkinson Sword GmbH im Eilverfahren untersagt, in Deutschland weiterhin Rasierklingeneinheiten für Nassrasierer zu vertreiben, die auf den Nassrasierer “Gillette Mach 3” von Gillette passen. Die US-amerikanische Gesellschaft Gillette ist […]
Für die Aussetzung einer Gebrauchsmusterverletzungsklage nach § 19 Sentence 1 GebrMG bis zur Erledigung des vorgreiflichen Löschungsverfahrens genügen im Regelfall bereits vernünftige Zweifel des Verletzungsgerichts an der Wirksamkeit des Gebrauchsmusters. LG Mannheim Beschluß vom 2.8.2016, 2 The 257/15 – Aussetzungsmaßstab im Gebrauchsmusterrecht … Der Rechtsstreit wird bis zur Entscheidung des Deutschen Patent- und Markenamts über […]
a) Bei der Anwendung der lauterkeitsrechtlichen Vorschriften zum Schutz vor Herkunftstäuschungen gemäß § 5 Abs. 1 Sentence 2 No.. 1 and Abs. 2 UWG sind im Einzelfall Wertungswidersprüche zum Markenrecht zu vermeiden (Fortfüh-rung von BGH, Wheat 2013, 397 Rn. 44 – Peek & Cloppenburg III; BGHZ 198, 159 Rn. 64 Hard Rock Cafe). b) Scheidet […]
Fend off warning
Peculiar Brand
Gesundheitshotel Recht
horak . Lawyers
Deposit of intellectual achievements
IT Rechtsanwalt
World trade mark application
Terms clause ineffective
Terms clause effectively
Attorney Hanover
attorney-hannover
Pharmacies approval
Art 101 TFEU
Art 7 The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Compensation claim § 89 HGB
Diet without me
Domain vs brand
Opposition withdrawal
Setting ban
Railway freight law
Dangerous Goods Transport Law
Contest coupling
Gray cement cartel
Risk of misleading
No trademark infringement
Knowledge of rights violation
Regional Labor Court in Hanover
State Media Law
Food labeling regulation
LG Dusseldorf
Light-Produk
Mass warning
Law for medical products
Lower Saxony Finance Court
OLG Cologne
Horses right
Presse Verlag
Directive 2006/24 / EC
Damage Legal
Sende Rechte
Social Court Hannover
Shipping insurance law
penalty clause declaration
Cease and desist declaration
illegal reimportation
Regulation (EG) No.. 1/2003
Regulation (EG) No.. 726/2004
Administrative Court of Hanover
VG in Cologne
§ 43b provisional
§ 5 Abs 1 Sentence 2 No. 3 UWG
§ 5 Abs. 1 Sentence 2 No.. 1 and 3 UWG
Abmahnkosten General Lawyer Pharmaceutical Law BGH Privacy law Domain Names injunction ECJ Attorney Google Liability Commercial representative HCVO Freedom of Information Internet Law Antitrust Knowledge Food Law LG Dusseldorf LG Hamburg Trademark Registration Trademark Protection Trademark Infringement Naming rights OLG Dusseldorf OLG Hamm OLG Stuttgart Patent Application Freedom of the Press The selfsame law Lawyer Damages Störerhaftung Injunctive Cease and desist Copyright Copyright infringement Judgment UWG Advertising Law Werbung Competition Law anticompetitive § 5 UWG
© Attorney Hanover: horak . Lawyers, Georgstr. 48, 30159 Hanover, Fund: 0511/357 356-0, Fax: 0511/357 356-29 2017