• Mehr als 3 Millionen Wörter Inhalt
  • |
  • info@itmedialaw.com
  • |
  • Tel: 03322 5078053
Rechtsanwalt Marian Härtel - ITMediaLaw

No products in the cart.

  • en English
  • de Deutsch
  • Informationen
    • Ideal partner
    • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • Quick and flexible access
    • Principles as a lawyer
    • Why a lawyer and business consultant?
    • Focus areas of attorney Marian Härtel
      • Focus on start-ups
      • Investment advice
      • Corporate law
      • Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Games
      • AI and SaaS
      • Streamers and influencers
      • Games and esports law
      • IT/IP Law
      • Law firm for GMBH,UG, GbR
      • Law firm for IT/IP and media law
    • The everyday life of an IT lawyer
    • How can I help clients?
    • Testimonials
    • Team: Saskia Härtel – WHO AM I?
    • Agile and lean law firm
    • Price overview
    • Various information
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Imprint
  • Services
    • Support and advice of agencies
    • Contract review and preparation
    • Games law consulting
    • Consulting for influencers and streamers
    • Advice in e-commerce
    • DLT and Blockchain consulting
    • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
    • Legal compliance and expert opinions
    • Outsourcing – for companies or law firms
    • Booking as speaker
  • News
    • Gloss / Opinion
    • Law on the Internet
    • Online retail
    • Law and computer games
    • Law and Esport
    • Blockchain and web law
    • Data protection Law
    • Copyright
    • Labour law
    • Competition law
    • Corporate
    • EU law
    • Law on the protection of minors
    • Tax
    • Other
    • Internally
  • Podcast
    • ITMediaLaw Podcast
  • Knowledge base
  • Videos
    • Information videos – about Marian Härtel
    • Videos – about me (Couch)
    • Blogpost – individual videos
    • Videos on services
    • Shorts
    • Podcast format
    • Third-party videos
    • Other videos
  • Contact
Kurzberatung
  • Informationen
    • Ideal partner
    • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • Quick and flexible access
    • Principles as a lawyer
    • Why a lawyer and business consultant?
    • Focus areas of attorney Marian Härtel
      • Focus on start-ups
      • Investment advice
      • Corporate law
      • Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Games
      • AI and SaaS
      • Streamers and influencers
      • Games and esports law
      • IT/IP Law
      • Law firm for GMBH,UG, GbR
      • Law firm for IT/IP and media law
    • The everyday life of an IT lawyer
    • How can I help clients?
    • Testimonials
    • Team: Saskia Härtel – WHO AM I?
    • Agile and lean law firm
    • Price overview
    • Various information
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Imprint
  • Services
    • Support and advice of agencies
    • Contract review and preparation
    • Games law consulting
    • Consulting for influencers and streamers
    • Advice in e-commerce
    • DLT and Blockchain consulting
    • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
    • Legal compliance and expert opinions
    • Outsourcing – for companies or law firms
    • Booking as speaker
  • News
    • Gloss / Opinion
    • Law on the Internet
    • Online retail
    • Law and computer games
    • Law and Esport
    • Blockchain and web law
    • Data protection Law
    • Copyright
    • Labour law
    • Competition law
    • Corporate
    • EU law
    • Law on the protection of minors
    • Tax
    • Other
    • Internally
  • Podcast
    • ITMediaLaw Podcast
  • Knowledge base
  • Videos
    • Information videos – about Marian Härtel
    • Videos – about me (Couch)
    • Blogpost – individual videos
    • Videos on services
    • Shorts
    • Podcast format
    • Third-party videos
    • Other videos
  • Contact
Rechtsanwalt Marian Härtel - ITMediaLaw

BGH on time limits and costs and closing letters for preliminary injunctions.

26. May 2023
in Competition law
Reading Time: 4 mins read
0 0
A A
0
bghurteil
Key Facts
  • The decision of the BGH on I ZR 61/22 considerably clarifies the law on interim injunctions.
  • Not a dramatic upheaval, but a confirmation of current law and established case law.
  • Decisions underline the necessity of deadlines and procedures for legal actors.
  • The case deals with the burden of proof and the duty of disclosure between the plaintiff and the defendant.
  • The debtor must inform the creditor of the objection at an early stage in order to avoid costs.
  • Costs for closing letters are generally based on the value of the matter in question, usually 1.3 times the business fee.
  • The decision calls for strict adherence to deadlines in order to avoid financial consequences.

Introduction

Content Hide
1. Introduction
2. The details of the case
3. Dealing with deadlines
4. The calculation of costs
5. Conclusion
5.1. Author: Marian Härtel

The landscape of German law is constantly in flux, characterized by ongoing adjustments and clarifications. A central role in this dynamic development is played by the case law of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), which, as the highest court in the Federal Republic of Germany, plays a key role in creating legal certainty in complex legal issues. In particular, its recent decision I ZR 61/22 provided essential clarifications in the area of preliminary injunctions, which are of great importance for legal practice.

The BGH’s decision does not create any sensations or dramatic upheavals in the law of preliminary injunctions. Rather, it largely confirms existing law and established case law, which was to be expected. But it also provides us with equally valuable clarifications and specifications that contribute to the further consolidation and standardization of case law in this area. In particular, the comments on existing deadlines and procedures are of particular relevance, as they further flesh out and concretize the legal framework.

In this context, it becomes clear that it is crucial for legal actors to correctly comply with the given deadlines and procedures in order to avoid unnecessary costs and disputes. This decision by the BGH once again underscores the need for careful and knowledgeable handling of the rules set forth by the court.

In this blog post, I will detail the key points and findings from this BGH decision and show what concrete implications it has for legal practice. A detailed analysis of this decision will not only deepen the understanding of current case law, but also raise awareness of the importance of proper compliance with deadlines and procedures. Because that’s essential to effectively litigate and avoid unnecessary costs.

The details of the case

The core of the case revolved around the issue of liability and the related obligations regarding knowledge of an objection. The plaintiff claimed that it sent the closing letter without being aware of the defendant’s objection. The lower courts had taken different views on this, which left it to the BGH to clarify the question of who bears the burden of proof for the fulfillment of an obligation to provide information in such situations.

The question of the burden of proof in such cases is of central importance. It decides which party bears the risk in the event that the facts of the case cannot be clearly clarified. In the present case, this means in concrete terms: must the plaintiff prove that it had no knowledge of the defendant’s objection, or is it up to the defendant to prove that the plaintiff knew or should have known of the objection?

In this context, it is important to emphasize that the court takes very seriously the parties’ duty to clarify the relevant circumstances of the case. It is not enough to merely make assertions. Rather, the parties must be able to substantiate and, if necessary, prove their statements.

This case also sheds light on the need for careful and timely communication between parties, particularly in the context of preliminary injunctions. It shows that every step in the process, from initiation to completion, is of the utmost importance and must be carried out carefully and conscientiously. This is the only way to avoid unnecessary costs and disputes.

Dealing with deadlines

The ruling of the BGH also emphasized that the debtor of an injunction has a duty of disclosure to the creditor. After the expiration of the waiting period of usually two weeks, which the creditor must observe before sending a final letter, the debtor must inform the creditor of the decision to file an opposition to the preliminary injunction.

If the debtor fails to provide this information and if this information, which was omitted in breach of duty, is the cause of the costs of an objectively no longer necessary closing letter from the creditor, this may give rise to a claim for damages by the creditor pursuant to Section 280 para. 1, § 241 para. 2 BGB trigger.

The calculation of costs

This decision of the BGH also underlines the importance of the correct calculation of costs in connection with the preparation and sending of a closing letter. According to the ruling, these costs are generally to be assessed according to the value of the object. In its decision, the BGH confirmed that the closing letter normally triggers a 1.3-fold business fee pursuant to No. 2300 VV RVG. However, depending on the circumstances of the individual case, a letter of a simple nature pursuant to No. 2302 VV RVG could also be considered.

Conclusion

In sum, the decision of the Federal Court of Justice in case I ZR 61/22 provides important clarifications and confirmations regarding existing procedures and deadlines for preliminary injunctions. It sheds light on how to accurately calculate closing letter costs and emphasizes the importance of meeting deadlines. Above all, however, it strengthens the debtor’s obligations with regard to the clarification of an objection.

Even if the decision offers little that is surprising in its core statements, the precise clarifications are of great importance for practice. They underscore the importance of acting carefully and prudently when dealing with restraining orders and the obligations that come with them.

The ruling serves as a reminder to all those involved in restraining orders to pay close attention to the applicable deadlines and procedures in order to avoid unnecessary costs. Because it is clear: failure to comply with these obligations can lead to significant financial consequences.

Marian Härtel
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.

Tags: AnalyseBghBurden of proofCase lawCreditorCustomizationDebtorDevelopmentFederal courtHaftungLegal certaintySicherheit

Weitere spannende Blogposts

Duty to provide information in the UrhG – definitely unknown for website operators or game publishers?

copyright
16. February 2023

There are always schemes where, as a lawyer, you are pretty sure that these clients are unknown. And § 32d...

Read moreDetails

ECJ rulings strengthen data protection: important clarifications on liability and compensation for damages

ECJ rulings strengthen data protection: important clarifications on liability and compensation for damages
15. December 2023

The recent decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the cases Natsionalna agentsia za prihotide (C-340/21) and Gemeinde...

Read moreDetails

Can Mailchimp be used in a way that is permissible under data protection law?

District Court Frankfurt a.M. on the right to be forgotten
7. November 2022

In line with my article today regarding Cloudflare(see here), due to a recent decision by the Bavarian State Office for...

Read moreDetails

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act: Council gives final green light to first global rules for AI

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act: Council gives final green light to first global rules for AI
22. May 2024

The European Council has adopted the AI Act, the world's first comprehensive set of regulations for artificial intelligence (AI). This...

Read moreDetails

Influencer: LG Frankfurt on the question of business action

Legal form as an influencer? A few hints!
30. April 2019

The series of decisions on influencer marketing continues and after the Munich Regional Court yesterday, a decision by the Frankfurt...

Read moreDetails

Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court sticks to tough influencer case law; tap tags decisive

Legal form as an influencer? A few hints!
7. November 2022

In a ruling dated September 9, 2020, the OLG Karlsruhe ruled that an influencer must label her posts on Instagram...

Read moreDetails

“Digital Services and Markets Act” enters into force

ECJ to decide whether consumer protection agencies may issue data protection warnings
16. November 2022

Today, the Digital Services Act came into force and will apply in all EU countries from February 17, 2024. The...

Read moreDetails

The legal classification of smart contracts

The legal classification of smart contracts
21. December 2022

Introduction - definition and understanding of terms Smart contracts are a form of automated agreement that are increasingly being used...

Read moreDetails

FDP wants to change TMG in line with cookie ruling

ECJ: Cookies require explicit consent of users
23. October 2019

The FDP parliamentary group has tabled an entry to amend the Telemedia Act in response to the ECJ's cookie ruling:...

Read moreDetails
Rechtliche Herausforderungen bei der Implementierung von Confidential Computing: Datenschutz und Verschlüsselung in der Cloud

Auftragsverarbeitungsvertrag (AV-Vertrag)

11. April 2025

Wichtigste Punkte Ein Auftragsverarbeitungsvertrag (AV-Vertrag) ist nach Art. 28 Datenschutz-Grundverordnung (DSGVO) erforderlich, wenn ein Unternehmen (Verantwortlicher) einen Dienstleister (Auftragsverarbeiter) mit der...

Read moreDetails
lawyer is providing information about the client s 2022 10 06 05 57 37 utc

Requirements specification / specifications

26. June 2023
No-shop clause

No-shop clause

16. October 2024
Genossenschaft

Genossenschaft

1. July 2023
Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin)

Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin)

24. June 2023

Podcast Folgen

247f58c28882e230e982fa3a32d34dea

Digital sovereignty: Europe’s path to a self-determined digital future

8. December 2024

In this exciting episode of the itmedialaw.com podcast, we take a deep dive into the highly topical subject of digital...

8315f1ef298eb54dfeed2f5e55c8b9da 1

First test episode of the ITMediaLaw Podcast

26. August 2024

First test episodeDear readers, I am delighted to present the first test run of our brand new IT Media Law...

da884f9e2769f2f96d6b74255be62c27

The role of the IT lawyer

5. September 2024

In this exciting podcast episode, we delve into the fascinating world of IT start-ups and find out why an experienced...

c9c5d7fd380061a8018074c2ca5a81bf

Startups and innovation in Germany – challenges and opportunities

26. September 2024

This insightful podcast episode takes an in-depth look at the startup and innovation landscape in Germany and Europe. The discussion...

  • Privacy policy
  • Imprint
  • Contact
  • About lawyer Marian Härtel
Marian Härtel, Rathenaustr. 58a, 14612 Falkensee, info@itmedialaw.com

Marian Härtel - Rechtsanwalt für IT-Recht, Medienrecht und Startups, mit einem Fokus auf innovative Geschäftsmodelle, Games, KI und Finanzierungsberatung.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
  • Informationen
    • Ideal partner
    • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • Quick and flexible access
    • Principles as a lawyer
    • Why a lawyer and business consultant?
    • Focus areas of attorney Marian Härtel
      • Focus on start-ups
      • Investment advice
      • Corporate law
      • Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Games
      • AI and SaaS
      • Streamers and influencers
      • Games and esports law
      • IT/IP Law
      • Law firm for GMBH,UG, GbR
      • Law firm for IT/IP and media law
    • The everyday life of an IT lawyer
    • How can I help clients?
    • Testimonials
    • Team: Saskia Härtel – WHO AM I?
    • Agile and lean law firm
    • Price overview
    • Various information
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Imprint
  • Services
    • Support and advice of agencies
    • Contract review and preparation
    • Games law consulting
    • Consulting for influencers and streamers
    • Advice in e-commerce
    • DLT and Blockchain consulting
    • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
    • Legal compliance and expert opinions
    • Outsourcing – for companies or law firms
    • Booking as speaker
  • News
    • Gloss / Opinion
    • Law on the Internet
    • Online retail
    • Law and computer games
    • Law and Esport
    • Blockchain and web law
    • Data protection Law
    • Copyright
    • Labour law
    • Competition law
    • Corporate
    • EU law
    • Law on the protection of minors
    • Tax
    • Other
    • Internally
  • Podcast
    • ITMediaLaw Podcast
  • Knowledge base
  • Videos
    • Information videos – about Marian Härtel
    • Videos – about me (Couch)
    • Blogpost – individual videos
    • Videos on services
    • Shorts
    • Podcast format
    • Third-party videos
    • Other videos
  • Contact
  • en English
  • de Deutsch
Kostenlose Kurzberatung