Legal Literature detailB a c k
Article 5 2.
Article 5 3.
Article 5 5.
|Reference||Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR) 2009, pages 626-633|
|Country||Germany||Legal Literature date||2009|
|Author||H. KÖHLER||Author initial|
|Title DE||Ist der Unlauterkeitstatbestand des § 4 Nr. 6 UWG mit der Richtlinie über unlautere Geschäftspraktiken vereinbar?||URL DE||N/A|
|Title EN||Is § 4 No. 6 UWG (the German Unfair Competition Act) compliant with the UCP Directive?||URL EN||N/A|
|Keywords||black list, combined offers, full harmonisation, prize promotion, professional diligence|
The author discusses whether § 4 Nr. 6 UWG (the German Unfair Competition Act), which prohibits to link a prize draw to the purchase of products and/or services (the ban on so-called tie-ins), is compliant with the UCP Directive.
The author concludes that § 4 Nr. 6 UWG is compatible with the UCP Directive, as it has to be read in conjunction with Sec. 3 II 1 UWG, which specifies the requirement of the "professional diligence", and enables a consideration of the circumstances of the individual case.
In particular, if such tie-in offer is directed at a group of particularly vulnerable consumers, such as children and minors, § 3 II 3 UWG enables a correct interpretation of § 4 Nr. 6 UWG and is therefore compliant with the UCP Directive.
In the meantime, on 14 January 2010, the ECJ decided (C-304/08) that Sec. 4 Nr. 6 UWG is not compliant with the UCP Directive as this national law does not consider the particular circumstances of the individual case.