Columbia Art District

Judgment to the affiliates process: the Supreme Court has decided – or also not affiliate programs to increase traffic on Internet sites. This page operators (merchants) cooperate with operators of other websites (affiliates), which set up links to the website of the merchant against Commission or some other form of compensation and, where appropriate, other promotional measures for him. In particular, the question whether merchants can be dragged to the liability for violations of the law committed by affiliates on their pages, arises from a legal perspective. So far, the question of liability for affiliate marketing in the case-law was controversial. The District Court of Hamburg decided, for example, that the merchant for the violations by affiliates in principle not liable.

Against the Cologne regional court came to the conclusion that a merchant even for violations of its affiliates on Web pages is liable, are not the subject of the partner program. Similarly, the courts in Cologne, Berlin and Munich decided. Now a case ended up before the BGH. A fight had two suppliers of bicycles and Bicycle accessories. It gave the company name of the applicant company in the search engine Google, you took a hit to an Internet site, a link to the website of the defendant company was. This site was operated by a company which had signed an affiliate agreement with the defendant company.

The brand name of the applicant was incorporated in the source code of the page, which resulted in the corresponding search results. The applicant asked in vain by the defendant to use the brand name of the applicant in the above manner or use by the affiliate partner. Resulted in a lawsuit by the instances, so that the Supreme Court on the question of liability had to take a stand. According to the BGH, the merchant can quite be liable for actions of its affiliates.

Burden for lost of cease and desist letter by E-Mail the have from judgment of July 07, 2009 lies underscore the regional court of Hamburg (AZ.: 312 O 142/09) his view that cease and desist letters by E-Mail are allowed and the have from carry the burden of proof that a cease and desist letter sent by E-Mail had not arrived. “Because the respondent in their business directory for a lawyer with the incorrect name of lawyer specializing in trademark law” recruited, this was prompted by E-Mail warning to the default. The email has been sent to the control as a “Blind carbon copy” to the partners of the Attorney warning from. “While the cease and desist letter via email from the partner arrived, this was not taken by the addressee noted, because the warning by the firewall” was stopped. The restraining order issued then by the District Court was recognized in terms of content, however the respondent did not bear the cost, because she had received no warning.

Nevertheless, the Court sentenced the respondent to pay costs of the procedure, because it is at the Cease and desist letter to a benefit for the respondent had acted. Because she would, given the opportunity in this way out of court to settle the matter, she must take the risk that the cease and desist letter perish. Also have the cease and desist letter just received to be considered, because they concluded that the respondent under normal conditions would have had the opportunity to take note of the content of the warning in their sphere of influence. Access of the control email and the fact that the email is not returned, justified a high probability, that the warning had also arrived. Contact: lawyer Ralf Moebius LL.M. legal informatics specialist lawyer for information technology law at the Ortfelde 100 D – 30916 Isernhagen lawyer for brand right II.pdf

The plaintiff sued the defendant on transfer of business shares obtained from the V2 to V9. They were of the opinion, the defendant had to pay damages committed, as he did from the outset ruthlessly persecuted the goal to transfer the ownership of the V2-V9. The hearing of V2-V9 in the date of the hearing has revealed that this was mostly unaware that the second notary 2008, but suitable was not a mere confirmation of the assignment directed, to thwart the pre-emption rights of the plaintiff and to establish compensation obligations of the V2-V9. The decision: The Dresden District Court upheld the claim and condemned the defendant by way of restitution to the transfer of the shares. The Dresden State Court considers the involvement of a third party to the breach a deliberate immoral injury of the creditors represents a party if other circumstances the action of third parties as with a loyal legal disposition seem incompatible.

The Dresden State Court assessed the conduct of the defendant as immoral: the defendant was necessarily interested in to make right the purchase contracts. According to the judgment in the parallel proceedings V1 was aware that the assignment of the year 2008 was schuldrechtlich and in-kind ineffective. The Dresden State Court continued that the defendant only has brought the effective transfer of business shares the second notary, to which he had invited under the pretext of the affirmation of the assignment. According to the findings of the District Court of Dresden was known that up to V9 the legal scope of the second assignment, designated by him as confirmation of the V2 was unaware the defendant at the Organization of the second notary appointment. The Dresden District Court saw an information gap of the defendant herein at the expense of V 2 to V9, which he legally advised intentionally immoral intent to cause damage has exploited, to make right the share purchases by the new making of the assignment. The judgment of the LG Dresden is not yet final.

Conclusion: Be thwarted exercised pre-emption rights, not only the contractual partner is damages in certain cases. Under certain Also the one on whose behalf the pre-emption rights have been thwarted, may be sentenced to pay damages requirements. He must transfer the purchased thing or rights then in the way of compensation to the beneficiaries of the right of first refusal. Click Ebay for additional related pages. The Dresden State Court makes it clear that the behavior must show liability for third parties, which is not compatible with a loyal disposition of law. Only then it is justified to subject the only involved the breach of a Contracting Party of itself also a liability for damages according to the regional court of Dresden.