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