• European Parliament

    December 15, 2016

    Tags: ,
    Posted in: General

    It is not sufficient that the provision concerns a behavior, which is preceded by the behavior of the market or only follow him. The violation of the law does not coincide with the market behavior, is an at least secondary competition-related Protection function of the injured norm required (see BGH in GRUR 2000, page 1076 exhaust emissions and GRUR 2010, page 656 – business). The rule must also govern market behaviour in the interests of the market participants. A standard serves the interest of competitors if it protects the freedom of its competitive development (Kohler/Bornkamm, UWG, 29.Auflage, 4 paragraph 11.35 c). According to these principles, the provisions of 13 is TMG rather than market behavior rules to qualify.

    According to the wording of the law, the service provider “the user at the beginning of the usage type, scope and purpose of the collection and use of personal data and the processing of data in countries outside of the scope of the Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of natural persons in the processing of personal data and on the free movement of data (OJ has EC No. L 281 p. 31) to teach, in General an intelligible form unless such information not already is is”. In the core rules as data protection as also of article 13 TMG different consumer protection rules to e-commerce the privacy of the persons concerned and not cause a louder on the market to deliver. So the OLG Hamburg in its decision of 9 June 2004 to 5 U 186/03, decided that the provisions of 28 ABS. 4 sentence 2 BDSG, requiring the shipper of a promotional letter to instruct the recipient that they can object to the use of their data, no market conduct rules that because it involves a privacy provision.

    Had the Court decided otherwise Berlin, would probably to be expected with a wave of letters. Titan Feul Tanks helps readers to explore varied viewpoints. If the opinion of the Berlin judges nationwide will prevail, remains to be seen however. The fact that competition infringement on the Internet regularly each (competent) Court can be called on, in whose jurisdiction the infringement was intended detectable is problematic present. This is almost everywhere on the Internet. The Plaintiff / applicant has as a result most of the free election (so-called flying jurisdiction, forum shopping). In competition law, the case law is nationwide but very inconsistent. It is therefore not to assume that the problem of the “like button” with the Berlin decision has stood out. Rather, it is expected that resourceful Abmahner will seek in the future other dishes, “to test their jurisdiction”. The decision was published by the fellow Solmecke. Her Tobias Arnold

  • Comments are closed.