Article 5 1.
||National ID||5 0 68/09|
|Common name||Decision type||Court decision, first degree|
|Court||Landgericht - LG (Itzehoe)||Plaintiff(s)||not disclosed|
|Court translation||Regional Court (Itzehoe)||Defendant(s)||gas supplier - name not disclosed|
|Keywords||comparative advertising, omission, price comparison, price information|
Open all Close all
It is an unfair commercial practice to publish an advertisement that compares gas prices with the prices of the primary local supplier, without mentioning the effective total price, and without mentioning that the price is subject to further requirements.
A gas supply company compared its prices with the prices of the primary local supplier in a daily newspaper, without mentioning the effective total price, and without mentioning that the advertised price was subject to the following requirements: (1) the advertised price required a minimum contract term of one year; (2) the commitment to a price category was chosen at the time of conclusion of the contract, for a period of one year; and (3) payment through direct debit.
The plaintiff requested injunctive relief against this commercial practice.
Is a comparative advertisement unfair if it does not mention the effective total price and does not mention the applicable conditions to receive the advertised price?
Such advertisement violates §§ 3 I, 4 No. 11 UWG (the German Unfair Competition Act) in connection with § 3 PAngV (the German ordinance on price statements), because § 3 PAngV requires gas suppliers to mention the total price -- including taxes -- in advertisements directed at consumers.
|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.|