BGH for the termination of a declaration of injunction

The Federal Court of Justice has recently taken an interesting decision on the question of dismissing a declaration of injunction. You should actually be very careful when signing cease-and-desist declarations, as I have shown in this article. In principle, cease-and-desist declarations cannot simply be terminated, as I explained in this post.

Now, however, the Federal Court of Justice has positioned itself in a special case and decided:

a) Abusive conduct in the case of a warning may constitute good cause for the termination of a cease-and-desist agreement based on the warning.

b) In the case of a cease-and-desist agreement concluded on the basis of an abusive warning, the assertion of contractual penalties for breaches,
which the debtor committed prior to the termination of the agreement, is precluded by the objection of abuse of rights pursuant to Section 242 BGB.

At its core, it was about two competitors in the electronics sector. The plaintiff here admonishes violations of the Electrical and Electronic Equipment Act of 16 March 2005 (ElektroG aF) and of the laws in force in Paragraph 3 of the 2 Sentence 1 no. 4 Electrical and electronic equipment-substance regulation of 13 April 2013 (ElektroStoffV aF) to affixing the CE marking. Under the On 14 May 2014, the applicant submitted to the defendant a declaration of injunction, which was subject to a criminal offence, which it accepted on 2 June 2014. After a series of test purchases, the applicant claims a total of EUR 36,000 in contractual penalties. Both the regional court, the Chamber Court and only the BGH considered the warning, the assertion of contractual damages and the entire conduct to be abused. In doing so, the Court of Appeal relied on a rereinforced legal opinion that abuse of rights within the meaning of Paragraph 8(8) of the Court of Justice was 4 UWG must be presumed if the dominant motive of the creditor in asserting the right to injunctive relief are unrelated objectives, such as the interest in obtaining fees or burdening the opponent with the highest possible legal costs or, in general, harming him. An indication of abusive prosecution may arise, inter alia, from the fact that the warning activity is not in a reasonable economic relationship with the commercial activity of the admonisher.

Although the judgment clarifies some important points, the problem is bordered by a large grey zone, as well as not to be underestimated evidence, so that an action should not take place without advice, so that it is not subsequently injunctive relief.

Author: Marian Härtel

Marian Härtel ist Rechtsanwalt und Fachanwalt für IT-Recht mit einer über 25-jährigen Erfahrung als Unternehmer und Berater in den Bereichen Games, E-Sport, Blockchain, SaaS und Künstliche Intelligenz. Seine Beratungsschwerpunkte umfassen neben dem IT-Recht insbesondere das Urheberrecht, Medienrecht sowie Wettbewerbsrecht. Er betreut schwerpunktmäßig Start-ups, Agenturen und Influencer, die er in strategischen Fragen, komplexen Vertragsangelegenheiten sowie bei Investitionsprojekten begleitet. Dabei zeichnet sich seine Beratung durch einen interdisziplinären Ansatz aus, der juristische Expertise und langjährige unternehmerische Erfahrung miteinander verbindet. Ziel seiner Tätigkeit ist stets, Mandanten praxisorientierte Lösungen anzubieten und rechtlich fundierte Unterstützung bei der Umsetzung innovativer Geschäftsmodelle zu gewährleisten.