Article 5 1.
Article 5 2.
Article 5 3.
|National ID||6 U 108/07|
|Common name||Decision type||Court decision in appeal|
|Court||Oberlandesgericht - OLG (Frankfurt am Main)||Plaintiff(s)||not disclosed|
|Court translation||Higher Regional Court (Frankfurt on the Main)||Defendant(s)||cable network operator - name not disclosed|
|Keywords||average consumer, comparative advertising, misleading advertising, misleading omissions, misleading price, misleading statements, product characteristics|
+ Expand all
(1) A telecom operator is obliged to point out that "call by call" services cannot be used when it makes a comparative advertisement with a provider where customers can use "call by call" services.
(2) A telecom operator is obliged to indicate additional installation fees if the installation is required to use the advertised products.
(3) The statement "3 times first choice" is not a misleading advertisement, because the average consumer interprets this statement as a typical advertisement declaration, and not as objective information.
(1) Under which circumstances is a telecom operator obliged to point out that the customer does not have the possibility to use "Call by Call" services?
(2) Is the statement "3 products, 2 flat rates, 1 price" a misleading advertisement if calls to foreign countries are not included?
(3) Under which circumstances is a provider of telephone services obliged to indicate additional fees for the installation?
(4) Is the statement "3 times first choice" a misleading advertisement?
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
(1) The plaintiff's request was granted.
(2) The plaintiff's request was denied.
(3) The plaintiff's request was granted.
(4) The plaintiff's request was granted.
|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.|