Annex I al1 2.
||National ID||22 0 100/08|
|Common name||Decision type||Court decision, first degree|
|Court||Landgericht - LG (Darmstadt)||Plaintiff(s)||Not disclosed|
|Court translation||Regional Court (Darmstadt)||Defendant(s)||Drug store - name not disclosed|
|Keywords||black list, code of conduct, misleading commercial practices, quality mark, trust mark|
+ Expand all
Does the (national implementation of the) UCP Directive allow seals of approval when the issuer of the quality mark has not properly verified whether the requirements for granting this quality mark are effectively met?
The usage of this quality mark was considered to violate §§ 3, 5 UWG (the German Unfair Competition Act). The usage of the quality mark was misleading because the consumer would think that (1) the pharmacy was approved by a neutral association that had undergone an official acceptance procedure in order to grant such quality marks; and (2) the pharmacy fulfills higher quality standards than other pharmacies that were not approved by the association BVDVA.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
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.|