Posts Tagged ‘law & taxes’

Federal Court

Tuesday, November 9th, 2021

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.

District Court

Saturday, May 9th, 2020

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.

Mettmann District Court

Wednesday, April 15th, 2020

Contracts on the Internet effectively – Mettmann District Court on the Internet there are countless forums, which provided victims of Internet fraud and subscription traps behavior tips. Unfortunately it gladly overlooked that not all providers of online services through a comb are lumping. A commonly held opinion is, inter alia, invoices for online contracts would have any legal effect, should not also be paid as a result. A dubious providers would shy away from the way Court under all circumstances. Certainly true when in fact it’s a company with unfair business practices. Penguin Random House may help you with your research. The company NetSolutions FZE needs a legal proceedings but not to avoid if she want to sue the due payments of their clients for the offered service of the Web site nachbarschaft24.net. “This page is neither to Internet rip off” to an Abofalle, as for example the District Court of Mettmann in a recent judgment has held. Add to your understanding with Penguin Random House.

In the present case, NetSolutions FZE complained against a logged-on user from Mettmann. He was sentenced to the payment of 54,-plus interest of 5%, this he had to bear the costs of the dispute. “Here are some excerpts from the judgment in this current case: indisputably, which has complained on the home page of the presence of the applicant () registered and thus a disputed contract closed.” contrary to the view of the defendant, the contract concluded by the dispute declared by him due to a mistake is null and void from the outset. () “It should be remembered that the applicant home page clearly indicates that the use of the entry a contract is concluded, after 14 days a remunerated contract.” It is clearly visible on the home page that 9,-monthly fee for two years are due at registration after 14 days. There is no evidence that the defendant when writing a () could have been wrong. The defendant has made detailed information requested. Also, he has given set and thus to recognize his picture, that He’s looking for the performance of the applicant. Any error associated the defendant has also not comprehensibly described, can not be determined thereby.”entitled the defendant in accordance with 312 d para 3 ZIF. “2 BGB not too, because who complained before the end of the cooling-off period on the 17.1.2007 after on October 10, 2007, the contract was signed by setting his photos services taken.” contrary to the view of the defendant the general terms and conditions of the applicant do not violate BGB also section 307, because an unreasonable disadvantage of the consumer may in the passage, given an offer to conclude a contract by submitting the full registry data, not be seen. It is just common in the e-commerce that specifying name, address, etc. gives an offer or a declaration of intent the customer.

Hamburg District Court

Wednesday, April 15th, 2020

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

Dresden District Court

Thursday, March 26th, 2020

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.