Case detailB a c k
Article 8 al1
Article 9 al1
Annex I al2 26.
|Common name||Decision type||Supreme court decision|
|Court||Oberster Gerichtshof (Wien)||Plaintiff(s)|
|Court translation||Supreme Court (Vienna)||Defendant(s)|
|Keywords||advertisement, black list, distance contracting, unordered product, unwanted solicitations|
+ Expand all
The use of advertisements on the property of consumers, without the consumers' consent, constitutes an aggressive commercial practice.
The first plaintiff is the operator of a 00.00-24.00 lock and key service in Vienna, the second plaintiff its exclusive associate and business leader, advertising the business by affixing advertising labels in various houses without prior approval of the tenants or owners; even if explicitly prohibited by tenants or owners.
The defendant, an association combating Unfair Competition, requested the plaintiffs to cease fixing the advertising labels within the houses, since, according to the defendant, the plaintiffs' practice is aggressive according to §1a UWG. The labels are, furthermore, to be characterized as a distance selling media according to § 1a UWG, Annex I item 26.
The court in first instance was asked by the defendant to rule on these facts and awarded an injunction prohibiting the plaintiffs' actions. The plaintiffs appealed to this decision, but the court in second instance approved the first decision. The plaintiffs appealed again.
Does the use of advertisements on the property of consumers, without the consumers' consent, constitute an aggressive commercial practice?
The Austrian Supreme Court considered the advertising labels as distance selling medias in the meaning of § 1a Abs 3 UWG related to Z 26 Annex UWG and, therefore, aggressive.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The plaintiff’s appeal was denied.
|There is no events for this case.|
|National ID||Common Name||Subject||Country||Link type|
|There is no related cases for this case.|
|There is no Legal Literature for this case.|