Because if an entrepreneur expanded its business area in the form that he outsources advertising his website to affiliates, the risk of rights violations of affiliates belong risk controllable by the entrepreneurial. However the liability of merchants is limited according to the BGH on those business activities of the affiliates, “which makes this in connection with the Division, which is based on the contract”. It was so that the domain of the affiliates, which surfaced on Google did not belong to an affiliate of the defendants in the case. In such a case it would go basically too far according to the BGH, to the merchant for violations under this domain not associated with the contractual relationship to the responsibility. The dispute is still the question, whether this domain to a domain covered by the affiliate agreement was directly coupled and knew the defendant thereof. In case of a liability of merchants could be again considered, so the BGH. The Court now has to clarify this question of the coupling.
Thus, the BGH has not decided the case. Nevertheless, the principles established by the Federal Court of Justice in the future must be observed. It will be based on of the case the question must, are recorded if the affiliate makes acts in a Division, of the affiliate agreement. If this question relates only to different domains, can be relatively simply clarify, if not such as in the case of the problem Moreover, that individual domains within and outside the partner program linked the liability question. Just what follows, if an advertisement on a domain belonging to the partner program will shut this advertising but beyond that, what was laid down in the Treaty? You can exclude liability in such cases by clauses in the affiliate agreement? That will depend on how one defines the “business unit” mentioned by the Federal Court of Justice. More information is housed here: Burgess Owens.