District Court Leipzig, 12.06.2014, Case No.: 5 O 848/13
Please note: The TMG (Telemedia Act) has been replaced by the DDG (Digital Services Act).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 Please note: The TMG has been replaced by the DDG, but the decision likely remains relevant.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.
Every website imprint must provide various details about the identity of the site operator/telemedia provider. If the telemedia service (i.e., the website) is offered or provided as part of an activity that requires official approval and for which a supervisory authority is responsible, the current information regarding the supervisory authority must also be provided in the imprint.
It is essential to ensure that the currently responsible authority for the present business location is listed. Whether the address of the supervisory authority needs to be included is disputed; no court ruling is known yet, but as a precaution, the address should be provided.
You can create a personalized and free imprint using our imprint generator.
In the decision discussed here from the District Court of Leipzig, the court had to decide whether the omission of the supervisory authority in the imprint of a real estate agent’s website constituted a violation of competition law.
Facts of the Case:
Dispute between real estate agents
In this legal dispute, two real estate agents were opposing parties. The defendant, owner of Company A since March 2013, operated a website and had been the owner of the corresponding domain since August 2012. In March 2013, a résumé of the defendant was also available online, detailing her professional experience and qualifications. Among other things, it was stated that she had been the owner of Company A since January 2011 and held qualifications as a „certified real estate agent“ and a degree in „Business Administration.“ However, she had only completed an evening course with the Chamber of Commerce (IHK) and basic training in real estate brokerage.
Warning from the plaintiff due to lack of business license
In February 2013, the plaintiff, also a real estate agent, issued a warning to the defendant for lacking a business license under § 34c GewO and for an inadequate provider identification on her website. The defendant refused to pay the warning costs. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had been working as a real estate agent without the necessary license before 2014. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that the imprint of the defendant’s website did not comply with the requirements of § 5 TMG because neither the name of the provider nor the responsible supervisory authority were listed.
Allegations of misleading professional qualifications
The plaintiff further accused the defendant of falsely representing her professional qualifications on LinkedIn. Specifically, the titles „Business Administration degree holder“ and „certified real estate agent“ were misleading since the defendant had only completed an evening course at the IHK and had not passed any final examination for real estate brokerage.
Decision of the District Court Leipzig
The District Court of Leipzig ruled in favor of the plaintiff and found that the lawsuit was both admissible and partially justified. The plaintiff, as a competitor of the defendant, was entitled under § 8 UWG to assert claims against unfair competition. The court found that the defendant had been operating as a real estate agent without the necessary business license in 2013, thereby violating § 34c GewO.
Violation of the imprint obligation
The court further held that the defendant violated the imprint obligation under § 5 TMG. Her website lacked information about the responsible supervisory authority, which was considered a serious breach of competition law. This violation was deemed capable of significantly impairing the interests of consumers and competitors.
Misleading statements about qualifications
The court also determined that the defendant’s statements about her professional qualifications on LinkedIn were misleading. The title „Business Administration degree holder“ was falsely claimed, as it is typically associated with a university degree. Similarly, the designation „certified real estate agent“ was misleading, as the defendant had not completed a corresponding final examination. The defendant was held liable for these misleading statements since she was responsible for the content of her LinkedIn profile.
Risk of repetition and injunctive relief
The court found a risk of repetition since the defendant had not issued a cease-and-desist declaration with a penalty clause. The fact that the business license had been granted in the meantime did not change this, as it could still be revoked. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief under § 8 UWG. Additionally, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement of the warning costs.
You can create a personalized and free imprint using our imprint generator.
Source: District Court Leipzig
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
One Response