One applicant in the preliminary injunction proceedings had waited over two months after learning of the relevant infringement before initiating proceedings. This was already too long for the first instance, the Potsdam Regional Court, to assume that the matter was urgent. The Higher Regional Court of Brandenburg has now confirmed this legal opinion. The court did not accept the applicant’s arguments that she had conducted negotiations with the other party in the meantime and had waited for them. It is true that an urgency period can be (slightly) extended due to out-of-court negotiations. In this case, however, the applicant had to recognize from the outset that an agreement did not seem realistically possible. She had repeatedly received no reply at all or only identical text modules in response. Negotiations must also be conducted with the necessary urgency and justify a reasonable hope of a remedy. In any case, waiting times of more than 8 weeks in total speak against the existence of the necessary urgency (OLG Brandenburg, decision of July 16, 2020, Ref.: 6 W 66/20).
Inadmissible media disruption: advertising letter may not refer to general terms and conditions on the Internet
Inadmissible media disruption: advertising letters may not refer to general terms and conditions on the Internet – important decision by the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court.