• Mehr als 3 Millionen Wörter Inhalt
  • |
  • info@itmedialaw.com
  • |
  • Tel: 03322 5078053
Kurzberatung
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
    • Laws
    • Legal terms
    • Contract types
    • Clause types
    • Forms of financing
    • Legal means
    • Authorities
    • Company forms
    • Tax
    • Concepts
  • 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
  • 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
    • Laws
    • Legal terms
    • Contract types
    • Clause types
    • Forms of financing
    • Legal means
    • Authorities
    • Company forms
    • Tax
    • Concepts
  • 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

Federal Constitutional Court on procedural equality of arms in competition law

7. November 2022
in Competition law
Reading Time: 4 mins read
0 0
A A
0
Tobias Hilfrich

Tobias Hilfrich

Key Facts
  • The 2nd Chamber of the Federal Constitutional Court has not accepted a constitutional complaint for decision.
  • Procedural equality of arms is also required in unfair competition law for preliminary injunctions.
  • The other party must be involved in summary proceedings, even if warnings have been issued.
  • A judicial reference without informing the complainant constitutes a breach of procedure.
  • Differences between the request for injunctive relief and the court application may be minor and not serious.
  • A serious disadvantage to the complainant was not demonstrated in the preliminary injunction proceedings.
  • The prompt scheduling of the hearing ensures that the proceedings are conducted swiftly.

In its decision, the 2nd Chamber of the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court did not accept for decision a constitutional complaint and a simultaneous application for a temporary injunction against a court injunction in unfair competition proceedings.
The Chamber thus confirms the constitutional requirements for procedural equality of arms that apply in summary proceedings under press and commentary law (see decisions of the 3rd Chamber of the First Senate of September 30, 2018 – 1 BvR 1783/17 -, – 1 BvR 2421/17 -) also for preliminary injunction proceedings in the area of unfair competition law. It clarifies that it is necessary to include the other party in the summary proceedings even if an out-of-court warning and a reply to the warning have been issued and are available to the court, but there is no identity between the request for injunctive relief from the pre-litigation warning and the subsequently filed application for an injunction. In addition, a court order to the applicant to improve its application without informing the defendant also constitutes a procedural violation.
Nevertheless, there is no sufficiently weighty interest in establishing pure procedural violations in preliminary injunction proceedings if the discrepancies between the injunctive relief sought out of court and the relief sought in court are minor, there is no showing of serious prejudice, and an oral hearing is held promptly.

Content Hide
1. Facts
2. Main considerations of the Board
2.1. Author: Marian Härtel

Facts

The constitutional complaint and the application for a temporary injunction filed at the same time are directed against a court-ordered temporary injunction that was issued without the participation of the complainant.
The complainant offers services in the dental field and in particular sends to its customers products that allow them to take an impression and photos of their dentition at home in order to create customized splints for straightening their teeth. The applicant in the main proceedings carried out a test purchase of such an impression set from the complainant, issued a warning to the complainant, inter alia, for allegedly failing to mark it with the “CE” mark and claimed an injunction against it.
The opponent in the main proceedings then applied to the Regional Court for an injunction. The court advised the petitioner in writing of concerns regarding petition drafting and prima facie evidence. The applicant then supplemented its application and obtained the issuance of the challenged preliminary injunction. The complainant was not involved in the judicial proceedings before the challenged decision was issued. The complainant filed an objection to the preliminary injunction and applied for protection against enforcement. The Regional Court dismissed the application for temporary suspension of execution.

Main considerations of the Board

It is true that there are procedural errors here. Thus, a violation of the principle of procedural equality of arms is to be seen in the fact that the request to cease and desist from the warning and the subsequently filed application for an injunction are not identical. Only in the case of identical wording is it ensured that the defendant also had sufficient opportunity to comment on the submissions made before the court to the extent required. The hearing of the complainant would therefore have been necessary before the issuance of the preliminary injunction. Secondly, a violation of the principle of procedural equality of arms lies in the issuance of a judicial notice to the applicant’s side without informing the complainant thereof. It is constitutionally required to put the respective opponent in the same state of knowledge as the applicant before issuing a decision. Therefore, judicial notices must also be communicated to him in a timely manner. This applies in particular if the purpose of legal information in the form of information is to improve an application or to provide an assessment of the prospects of success.
However, the infringements identified do not justify a sufficiently weighty interest in a declaratory judgment. The differences between the out-of-court cease-and-desist request and the originally filed application for an injunction as well as the amended version of the application are minor and not serious. According to the “core theory” developed in unfair competition law, the protection of a cease-and-desist order covers not only infringements that are identical to the prohibited form, but also equivalent infringements that leave the infringement core untouched. The core theory is constitutionally unobjectionable in principle. It serves the effective enforcement of injunctive relief. It would be considerably more difficult if the cease-and-desist order were deemed to have been violated only in those cases in which the act of violation corresponds exactly to the wording of the order. In principle, it is reasonable for the defendant to also comment on core-similar, non-identical infringements in the reply letter to an out-of-court warning. A boundary must be drawn where the application for an injunction leaves the subject matter of the dispute asserted in the out-of-court warning or introduces further subjects of the dispute. In the present case, however, the complainant had to be aware of the need to respond comprehensively to core violations due to the wording chosen out of court.
Furthermore, there is no demonstration of a serious disadvantage that could not be compensated for by the obligation to pay damages pursuant to Section 945 ZPO. The protection of the defendant in the preliminary injunction proceedings is sufficiently taken into account by the obligation to pay damages pursuant to Section 945 of the German Code of Civil Procedure. If the defendant suffers damage as a result of the enforcement, the claimant shall compensate for such damage regardless of fault. No irreparable damage to the complainant is apparent.

Moreover, the scheduling of the hearing on the opposition to the preliminary injunction still appears to be sufficiently timely to ensure that the proceedings are conducted expeditiously and to allow the appellant to make a comprehensive statement on the merits of the case.

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: Competition lawDamagesFederal constitutional courtserviceTestWarning

Weitere spannende Blogposts

Eiermann tables and copyright

Eiermann tables and copyright
5. December 2022

Since I know quite a few fans of Eiermann tables in the office, especially in the startup sector, I just...

Read moreDetails

Discount promotions may not be extended

Discount promotions may not be extended
7. November 2022

Since I have currently just seen the opposite, I would like to briefly point out the following circumstance in the...

Read moreDetails

Influencer: LG Itzehoe also bans sneaky advertising

#ad as hashtag for advertising not sufficient!
30. January 2019

So slowly the topic of influencers and advertising in Stream, Twitter and on Instagram is being dealt with by more...

Read moreDetails

Legal opinions are an error in the meaning of the UWG

abmahnung
23. May 2019

Already a few times I had to tell clients that one should be very careful when one communicates - possibly...

Read moreDetails

Why startups should be careful with high investments: 5 reasons pro and contra

Why startups should be careful with high investments: 5 reasons pro and contra
10. May 2023

Five reasons against rash, high investments As a lawyer and consultant, I would first like to point out to young...

Read moreDetails

The risk of an injunction

Online retailer: Notice of warranty of defects
9. April 2019

Time and again, one has to hear from clients that, in the event of a warning that seems justified, one...

Read moreDetails

BGH rejects delisting request against Google!

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

The BGH has ruled in two cases, rejecting the delisting request in one case (confirming the first two instances) and...

Read moreDetails

BGH provides clarity: photo wallpaper in hotels is not a copyright infringement

BGH considers Uber Black to be anti-competitive
24. September 2024

In its ruling of 10.09.2024 (case no. I ZR 99/23), the Federal Court of Justice ruled that the installation of...

Read moreDetails

Attention: Fine for geoblocking!

Geoblocking Ordinance: Attention Warning Trap
17. January 2019

Alongside the Packaging Act, for which there are articles here and here, the EU's Geo-blocking Regulation is probably one of...

Read moreDetails
Modding in EULAs und Verträgen – was gilt rechtlich in Deutschland?
Law and computer games

Modding in EULAs und Verträgen – was gilt rechtlich in Deutschland?

8. September 2025

Mods erweitern Videospiele um neue Inhalte, verbessern Grafik oder fügen völlig neue Spielweisen hinzu. Kaum ein großer PC-Titel kommt heute...

Read moreDetails
Schiedsvereinbarungen in EULAs und Entwicklerverträgen

Schiedsvereinbarungen in EULAs und Entwicklerverträgen

7. September 2025
Chain of Title im Game-Development: Rechtekette sauber aufbauen

Chain of Title im Game-Development: Rechtekette sauber aufbauen

6. September 2025
Fail-Fast Klauseln in Medienproduktionen – Was ist das eigentlich?

Fail-Fast Klauseln in Medienproduktionen – Was ist das eigentlich?

5. September 2025
Founder’s Agreement vs. Gesellschaftervertrag: Frühzeitige Weichenstellung für Startups

Founder’s Agreement vs. Gesellschaftervertrag: Frühzeitige Weichenstellung für Startups

12. August 2025

Podcastfolge

Globale Herausforderungen für Startups – Ein rechtlicher Leitfaden

Globale Herausforderungen für Startups – Ein rechtlicher Leitfaden

2. October 2024

Dieser informative Podcast bietet einen umfassenden Einblick in die rechtlichen Herausforderungen, denen sich Startups bei ihrer internationalen Expansion gegenübersehen. Der...

Read moreDetails
Rechtskette beim Spieleentwickler

Rechtskette beim Spieleentwickler

19. April 2025
Das Metaverse – Rechtliche Herausforderungen in virtuellen Welten

Das Metaverse – Rechtliche Herausforderungen in virtuellen Welten

25. September 2024
KI im Rechtssystem: Auf dem Weg in eine digitale Zukunft der Justiz

KI im Rechtssystem: Auf dem Weg in eine digitale Zukunft der Justiz

13. October 2024
Juristische Trends für Startups 2025: Chancen und Herausforderungen

Juristische Trends für Startups 2025: Chancen und Herausforderungen

19. April 2025

Video

Mein transparente Abrechnung

Mein transparente Abrechnung

10. February 2025

In diesem Video rede ich ein wenig über transparente Abrechnung und wie ich kommuniziere, was es kostet, wenn man mit...

Read moreDetails
Faszination zwischen und Recht und Technologie

Faszination zwischen und Recht und Technologie

10. February 2025
Meine zwei größten Herausforderungen sind?

Meine zwei größten Herausforderungen sind?

10. February 2025
Was mich wirklich freut

Was mich wirklich freut

10. February 2025
Was ich an meinem Job liebe!

Was ich an meinem Job liebe!

10. February 2025
  • 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
    • Laws
    • Legal terms
    • Contract types
    • Clause types
    • Forms of financing
    • Legal means
    • Authorities
    • Company forms
    • Tax
    • Concepts
  • 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