- BGH rules on property right warnings and their scope with regard to rights holders.
- Parts of the warning that are unlawful do not automatically affect the rights of the business.
- Unjustified warnings may be legally permissible without any business consequences.
- The BGH protects against exaggerated claims by warning letters.
- Warning letters are liable for court and legal costs in the event of inappropriate warnings.
- Comprehensive proceedings have been ongoing for 13 years and have still not been concluded.
- Special feature: Plaintiff finances the legal defense of warned retailers after the insolvency of the warning company.
The BGH has made an interesting judgment, which I would like to leave simply once in the with the guiding principles:
a) If a property right warning is partially justified, but its scope goes beyond what the right holder can justifiably demand, this does not constitute an interference with the right to the established and exercised commercial enterprise if the wrongfully objected behavior cannot reasonably be expected from the warned party under the overall circumstances.
b) Insofar as the IP warning directed at a customer is unjustified, this does not constitute an interference with the right to the established and exercised commercial enterprise of the manufacturer if it lacks the ability to impair the manufacturer’s business activities.
The BGH thus reduces the risk for warning letters to approach opponents with exaggerated claims. Of course, a warning letter is liable for court and attorney’s fees due to a warning letter that is excessive. However, the Federal Court of Justice rules out any further claims that might arise as a result of restrictions on economic development opportunities.
The entire ruling can be found here. It should be noted, however, that this is a case that has been ongoing for a total of 13 years and is still continuing at the Higher Regional Court with regard to attorney’s fees. In addition, it is a rather special construction, in which the plaintiff as a distribution company, at its own expense, has taken over the legal defense of associated, warned, dealers and which the warning company has filed for insolvency in the meantime.
