Düsseldorf Regional Court, 08.08.2013, Ref.: 14 c O 92/13 U
Please note: The TMG (Telemedia Act) has been replaced by the DDG (Digital Services Act). However, the decision is likely still relevant in content. You can find an overview here. Please note: The TMG has been replaced by the DDG, but the decision likely remains relevant. An overview can be found here.
Among other things, the imprint must include the responsible supervisory authority if the website is offered as part of an activity that requires official authorization.
Activities requiring official authorization include, for example, operators of gaming arcades, real estate agents, debt collection companies, restaurants, or taxi companies. The currently responsible authority for the present business location of the website operator must always be specified. To be on the safe side, the address of the responsible supervisory authority should also be provided.
In the ruling discussed here from the Düsseldorf Regional Court, the court had to decide a legal dispute between two real estate agents, one of whom had not specified the responsible supervisory authority.
You can create a personalized and free imprint using our imprint generator.
Facts of the Case:
Dispute between real estate agents regarding imprint obligations
Two competing real estate agents became involved in a legal dispute over the correct indication of the supervisory authority in the imprint. The plaintiff, a real estate agent from Düsseldorf, noticed in May 2013 that the defendants, also real estate agents in Düsseldorf, had not provided information about the responsible supervisory authority on their website. However, this was required under Section 34c of the Trade, Commerce and Industry Regulation Act (GewO), as their activity required official authorization.
Cease-and-desist letter and preliminary injunction
On 27.05.2013, the plaintiff sent the defendants a cease-and-desist letter, requesting them to submit a cease-and-desist declaration by 10.06.2013. However, the defendants refused this with a letter dated 04.06.2013. Subsequently, the plaintiff applied for a preliminary injunction at the Düsseldorf Regional Court on 13.06.2013, which was issued on 19.06.2013. The injunction prohibited the defendants from not providing the responsible supervisory authority on their homepage and in property brokerage advertisements.
Objection to the preliminary injunction
The defendants objected to the preliminary injunction on 28.06.2013. They argued that they were only required to provide the supervisory authority but not the authority that issued the license. Additionally, they claimed that the cease-and-desist letter was abusive under Section 8(4) of the UWG (Unfair Competition Act).
Decision of the Düsseldorf Regional Court
The defendants objected to the preliminary injunction on 28.06.2013. They argued that they were only required to provide the supervisory authority but not the authority that issued the license. Additionally, they claimed that the cease-and-desist letter was abusive under Section 8(4) of the UWG (Unfair Competition Act).
Decision of the Düsseldorf Regional Court
Following an oral hearing, the court lifted the order and dismissed the plaintiff’s application. It ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction under Sections 8(1) and 3 No. 1, 3(1), and 4 No. 4 UWG in conjunction with Section 5(1) TMG.
Missing imprint information from the defendants
While the court acknowledged that the defendants had violated Section 5(1) No. 3 of the TMG by failing to provide information about the supervisory authority, it was undisputed that the defendants‘ activity required an official permit under Section 34c GewO. However, the plaintiff could not demand that the defendants indicate the authority that issued the permit, as this authority was not necessarily the same as the supervisory authority.
Conclusion
The plaintiff’s application was dismissed as there was no sufficient basis for the requested cease-and-desist declaration. The plaintiff had insisted on his wording despite the defendants‘ pre-litigation objections, which prevented further interpretation of the application.
Source: Düsseldorf Regional Court
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Note: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, the complexity and ever-changing nature of the subject matter make it necessary to exclude liability and warranty. This article cannot replace legal advice.
If you need legal advice, please feel free to call us at 0221 - 80187670 or send us an email at or send an email to info@mth-partner.de info@mth-partner.de
You can create a personalized and free imprint using our imprint generator.
Attorneys in Cologne provide advice and representation in internet law.
One Response