The higher regional court had a legal dispute to decide a new soft drink. It was a sparkling tea”called a new product which is according to heightens variety tea extracts, carbonated water, flavors and other ingredients. The company applied the product with the slogan”the tea with Zzischh. A tea manufacturer contends, will giving the incorrect impression that the beverage is based not only on tea extracts, but brewed tea in the meaning of the guidelines of the German food book. The Court rejected the claim.
Contrary to the view represented by the applicant, the assessment has Court rather than primarily on the German food book ( 15 LFGB) to orient the guidelines for tea, tea-like products, which extracts and preparations by the 02.12.1998 (Annex K 4). The principles there laid down like expert description of the significant for the marketability of manufacture, nature and other characteristics of food under circumstances appropriate existing or in the future to emerging consumer expectations can suggest, but not binding norms or in any case reliable images of current consumer understanding. “” “In addition, that the guidelines for tea, where in Germany for a long time under the name Rooibos” or Rooibos tea “well-known tea-like beverage not incidentally is mentioned according to the supplied hint of asterisk beverages, which indicate in the designation or presentation of tea (E.g. ice tea),” just don’t take into account and on the dispute crucial issue whether an designation indicative on tea and presentation of beverages addressed consumer awakens inaccurate expectations, therefore nothing can help. While attacked featuring of the product relevant mislead of addressed consumer as a result is, according to the Court. The different varieties of sparkling are not disputed “” Tea”produced but not like this, that the grade black tea” fermented in the variety of green tea “unfermentierte leaves, leaf buds and tender stalks of the tea Bush Camellia sinensis L.O..
The average Internet user will not know which IP address was assigned him just when surfing. Another circumstance is that Internet access providers only a few days to save the IP address and then delete. Details can be found by clicking AOL or emailing the administrator. At the time, to which the Internet user receives a copyright warning, the IP address is deleted already, so that he cannot verify the accuracy of the identification with its research. Requests at the Internet access provider with respect to the circumstances and the assigned IP address to the date of the alleged offence were generally fruitless in the past. Impact in practice: people who see themselves confronted with the alleged of breach of copyright, must henceforth make the accuracy of IP addresses determining in a permissible manner with ignorance in question. It is then on the claimant to demonstrate the accuracy.
A presumption of correctness in any case, no longer exists. For more specific information, check out Dermot McCormack. D. education and instruction duties has been disputed for the use of the Internet connection holder as troublemakers if have this adult roommate is amended to clarify that this should make use of the provided Internet connection only for legal purposes and in particular no illegal file sharing should operate. The OLG Cologne now called into question, whether there are mutual monitoring duties for married couples. The Court pointed out that a telephone service agreement was deemed to the reasonable needs of the life business according to Article 1357 of civil code. The question of teaching obligation to a spouse is accordingly to answer. How the LG Cologne interpreted this requirement and decorated, remains to be seen.
It is to be hoped that a clear statement to the duty of disclosure is made. E. Bagatellklausel In the copyright law was a so-called Bagatellklausel in section 97a para 2 UrhG recorded, stating that the claim for reimbursement of the costs for the first time warning in easy storage cases with a negligible Infringement of rights outside of the commercial transactions on 100 is limited. A court decision whether this clause affects Filesharingfallen, is still out. The OLG Cologne looks at it however when playing computer in question as not ruled out, that this clause could intervene. The LG Cologne has now detailed to deal with the conditions of this provision and can not succinctly pass in the reasons for the decision in. It would be most welcome if the application framework of Bagatellklausel would finally step decided. The legal uncertainty in relation to future decisions of the courts was not acceptable so far. F. summary judgment represents a sensation just for the Cologne District. Previously almost “invulnerable” rights holder in this judicial district and alleged file sharers were sentenced there, row after row. Other jurisdictions showed quite a unterschiedlicheres image. In the variety of previously issued Decisions reflected tendencies that bring made with law and order is still difficult in line. In particular in the distribution of the burden and the burden of proof an imbalance arose, which now hope is restored in the lot.