As a lawyer specializing in IT and media law, I would like to present a recent ruling by the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main that is of great importance to the marketing industry.
It concerns the issue of identical infringements in cease-and-desist declarations – a topic that repeatedly causes uncertainty in online marketing.
The case before the Frankfurt Regional Court
The original proceedings concerned advertising for hearing aids.
The Frankfurt Regional Court had ordered the defendant company to refrain from advertising with certain formulations.
Specifically, the following statements were prohibited:
1. “Secure your health insurance contribution now!”
2. “Request your health insurance share directly here!”
3. “Secure your health insurance share for the best hearing quickly here” The Regional Court based its decision on the fact that these advertising statements were prohibited under Section 5 para. 1, paragraph 2 No. 1 UWG are misleading.
They are likely to create the misconception in the target public that health insurance can be settled when purchasing a hearing system, even if it is processed entirely online.
The new advertising and the regulatory procedure
The company subsequently used a modified formulation in its advertising.
It now advertised “Get a subsidy of up to €1,690” and explained that health insurance companies “can” cover up to this amount for the purchase and servicing of hearing aids.
The Frankfurt Regional Court rejected the application to impose an administrative fine in a ruling dated 27.03.2024.
It did not consider the new wording to be a material breach.
The judges justified this by stating that the original statement contained an active call to action, whereas the new wording was merely informative in nature.
The decision of the OLG Frankfurt
The Frankfurt Higher Regional Court confirmed the decision of the Regional Court.
It stated that the new advertising no longer fell within the core area of the injunctive relief.
The Higher Regional Court emphasized that the decisive factor for the assessment of an infringement with the same core was whether the new formulation was already – at least mentally – the subject of the original discovery proceedings.
The court found that the new advertising differed both in terms of wording and content from the originally prohibited statements.
Therefore, it could not be assumed that these had already been taken into account in the original proceedings.
Significance for marketing agencies
This decision is highly relevant for marketing agencies.
It shows that nuances can certainly play a role in the assessment of similar infringements.
Not every similar formulation is automatically considered an infringement.
For marketing agencies, this means that they need to be careful following a cease-and-desist declaration or a court prohibition, but still have scope for creative solutions.
It is crucial that agencies carefully analyze and understand the core message of the original ban.
When developing new advertising strategies, they should take care to avoid the problematic core of the original statement, while at the same time conveying the desired message in a new, legally unobjectionable way.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt shows that there is certainly room for interpretation in the area of core-like infringements.
For marketing agencies, this means on the one hand the opportunity to design effective advertising even after cease-and-desist declarations.
On the other hand, it underlines the need to approach such issues very carefully and with legal expertise.
Careful consideration and, in case of doubt, legal advice can protect against costly mistakes.
Ultimately, the assessment of whether there has been a hardcore infringement remains a question of the individual case, which always requires careful examination.
