LEGAL+ NEWS
So-called. warning letters (cf. § 8 Para. 3 No. 2 UWG) are causing the economy a lot of trouble. Smaller companies or start-ups in particular often cannot afford to defend themselves. This overlooks the fact that a warning association is only authorized to pursue alleged infringements of competition law under strict conditions. This follows from Section 8 (3) No. 2 UWG:
“The claims arising from paragraph 1 are due to: (…)
2. associations with legal capacity for the promotion of commercial or independent professional interests, insofar as a significant number of entrepreneurs belong to them who sell goods or services of the same or a related kind on the same market, if they are able, in particular in terms of their personnel, material and financial resources, to actually perform their statutory tasks of pursuing commercial or independent professional interests and insofar as the infringement affects the interests of their members;”
This means:
A warning association may only take action in individual cases if:
it may count among its members a significant number of members who sell
goods or services of the same or a related kind on the same market.
In short: If a warning association wants to take action against an advertising agency, for example, it must generally have a considerable number of advertising agencies (or similar companies) among its members.
Regrettably, case law is quite generous when examining this generally strict requirement. However, this may also be due to the fact that the parties concerned do not question the right of the competition association “attacking” them to file an application or bring an action with the necessary tenacity. From my own experience, I can report on a case in which an internet search regarding alleged members led to astonishing findings:
It turned out that not a single one of the four members of the relevant industry listed could be verified. On the contrary: one of the alleged advertising agencies turned out to be a beauty clinic.
The lesson to be learned from this is that it is always worth questioning the information on the list of members from which every warning association derives its supposed authority to suspect competition law infringements!
LATEST ARTICLES

On the bias of judges in civil proceedings: If judges do not read a party’s pleadings, this can justify a motion for recusal!
Following on from my overview article on the application for recusal pursuant to Section 42 ZPO, I would like to report on an interesting ruling by the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe. According to this ruling, a judge’s failure to read the pleadings submitted by a party can give rise to concerns of bias. In the case in question, a judge had overlooked an application for recusal directed against him, as he had forwarded the pleading containing it unread to the opposing party for comment. This violates the so-called duty to wait pursuant to Section 47 (1) ZPO, according to which only “official acts that cannot be postponed” are permitted from the filing of an application for recusal until it has been dealt with.

BGH on the legal consequences of thwarting evidence
In legal disputes, it often happens that one party makes it difficult for the opposing party to provide evidence. In these cases, the question then arises as to whether and, if so, with what legal consequences it can be assumed that evidence has been obstructed.

Guide to procedural law: Easier way to claim damages for exhaust gas manipulation – On the BGH ruling of June 26, 2023 (Ref. Via ZR 335/21)
This article attempts to classify and evaluate the current ruling of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) of June 26, 2023 (Ref. Via ZR 335/21) on the subject of compensation for damages due to emissions manipulation by car manufacturers.
CONTACT
+49 (40) 57199 74 80
+49 (170) 1203 74 0
Neuer Wall 61 D-20354 Hamburg
kontakt@legal-plus.eu
Benefit from my active network!
I look forward to our networking.
This post is also available in: DE

