Regional Court Regensburg, 31.01.2013 , Ref.: 1 HK O 1884/12
Please note: The TMG (Telemedia Act) has been replaced by the DDG (Digital Services Act).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 Please note: The TMG has been replaced by the DDG, but the decision likely remains relevant.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.
We have already discussed the obligation of operators of Facebook pages used for business purposes to provide a proper and complete legal notice on several occasions.
In certain cases, however, a warning due to a missing imprint may also be unjustified if the operator has actually violated the provisions of the Telemedia Act.
This is always the case if the party issuing the warning has abused the law. According to Section 8 (4) UWG, this is always the case if the warning is abusive in view of all the circumstances, in particular if it serves primarily to give rise to a claim against the infringing party for reimbursement of expenses or legal costs. In case law, certain criteria have emerged in this regard, which the Regional Court of Regensburg has illustrated very well in the decision discussed here.
You can create a personalized and free imprint using our imprint generator.
Facts of the Case:
This decision concerned a competition law dispute. The plaintiff claimed to be an up-and-coming IT system house whose range of services included the development of software and training for all common operating systems. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was said to offer the same range of operating systems.
Company sues competitor for missing Facebook legal notice
On 9 August 2012, the plaintiff claims to have established that the defendant had not provided an imprint within the meaning of Section 5 TMG on its Facebook page. In a letter dated 9 August 2012, it therefore issued a warning to the defendant and demanded a cease-and-desist declaration with penalty clause and EUR 265.70 in warning fees from the defendant.
As the defendant neither issued the cease-and-desist declaration nor paid the warning fees, the plaintiff brought an action for injunctive relief and payment of the warning fees before the Regional Court of Regensburg.
Defendant denies being a competitor
The defendant defended itself with the argument that the plaintiff did not have any business operations and was therefore not a competitor; in any case, it denied with ignorance that the plaintiff would organise training courses. Incidentally, the necessary legal notice was already available by scrolling under the info box before 9 August 2012.
Finally, the warning letter was also an abuse of rights. The plaintiff had issued 181 warnings within 8 days.
Decision of the Regional Court of Regensburg
The Regensburg Regional Court ruled that the action was admissible and justified pursuant to Sections 4 (11), 8, 12 (1) sentence 2 UWG. Only the competitor would be entitled to injunctive relief (Section 8 (3) (1) UWG). The term "competitor" is defined in Section 2 (3) UWG. According to this, a competitor is any entrepreneur who is in a concrete competitive relationship with the other entrepreneur as a supplier or buyer of goods and services. This presupposes at least that the plaintiff has maintained a business at all or would at least directly endeavour to do so. The court considered this to be given and proven by the plaintiff.
LG Regensburg considers a competitive relationship to exist
There is also a concrete competitive relationship. Both parties offer training courses. In the case of the defendant, this was already apparent from its website. In the case of the plaintiff, this was evident from the credible testimony of the witness K. The court assumed a concrete competitive relationship despite the distance between the two locations of the parties because it was no longer possible to focus on the geographically limited area in substitution competition. Internet services such as programme development and training are not limited to a geographical area or to catchment areas. Internet services can be provided worldwide, as both the communication with customers takes place via the Internet and, after exchanging passwords, a provider located miles away can connect to the customer's PC at any time and provide all services there.
According to Section 5 TMG, service providers who ultimately provide their services for a fee must disclose their data. The defendant used the Facebook page as an entry channel to its website, on which its paid services were presented. The obligation under Section 5 TMG would therefore apply to such Facebook pages that have a certain degree of independence in relation to the company presented.
The Facebook page lacked the necessary information
On 9 August 2012, this necessary information was missing from the defendant's Facebook page. This was the result of the witness statements.
The lack of information pursuant to Section 5 TMG would constitute an offence pursuant to Section 4 (11) UWG. This is an obligation to provide information in business transactions with consumers and therefore a market behaviour regulation. Market behaviour rules are regulations within the meaning of Section 4 (11) UWG. An offence would therefore have been committed. The fact that there is now an imprint on the defendant's Facebook page would not invalidate the risk of repetition. This could only be eliminated by issuing a declaration to cease and desist with a penalty clause. However, the defendant had not submitted this.
Contrary to the defendant's view, there was also no abusive behaviour on the part of the plaintiff due to the large number of warnings. According to Section 8 (4) UWG, abusive behaviour on the part of the plaintiff in asserting the claim for injunctive relief exists if this can be established taking into account all the circumstances, in particular if its behaviour serves to give rise to a claim for reimbursement of expenses or costs of legal action against the infringer.
As already stated in the legal text, an overall assessment of all circumstances must be made. The following assessment criteria have emerged in case law:
Is the warning activity disproportionate to the commercial activity of the person issuing the warning?
This could not be the case here. The witness K... had credibly stated that the decisive work had made the search programme for the infringements. The managing directors of the plaintiff had in turn stated that they had developed this programme for a legal expenses insurance company. The time spent was credibly described by the witness K... as short. The entire work, searching Facebook for faulty websites and checking whether the software programme had problems or not, including checking messages such as those from ... had taken a total of one day's work.
Are excessive warning fees being demanded?
This is also not the case. The plaintiff is demanding EUR 265.70 in warning fees here. This is extremely low in comparison to other cases and is barely above the rate of around EUR 200 for warning costs for associations and qualified organisations within the meaning of Section 8 (3) (2) and (3) UWG without the involvement of a lawyer.
Is the contractual penalty excessive?
This is also not the case with a contractual penalty of EUR 3,000.00.
Is the contractual penalty independent of fault?
This criterion applies here to the detriment of the plaintiff.
Is the contractual penalty promised for each individual offence, eliminating the so-called continuation of the offence?
This was true. However, the waiver of the concept of continuation of proceedings alone is not sufficient to assume abuse. In addition, it should be taken into account that the concept of a continuation of proceedings in criminal law and also in enforcement law pursuant to Section 890 ZPO is now obsolete.
Does the lawyer work under his own direction?
This was also not the case here. This is shown by the agreement between the plaintiff and its managing directors and the legal representative dated 6 August 2012, which was presented at the hearing.
Is the plaintiff a so-called multiple admonisher?
A so-called multiple warning is given if the person issuing the warning would issue a warning to a large number of different competitors in the same legal situation. With over 180 warnings within 1 week, this characteristic would be present on the part of the plaintiff. However, this criterion in itself is only an indication of abusive behaviour and does not in itself justify the conclusion of abuse.
Since only one of the seven criteria for assessing the abusive nature of the plaintiff's action was met and this one was not a significant one, the court held that there was no abuse of rights.
Source: Regional Court Regensburg
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