Legal Literature detailB a c k
|Reference||Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, 2012, pages 217-224|
|Country||Germany||Legal Literature date||2012|
|Author||H. KÖHLER||Author initial|
|Title DE||Unbestellte Waren und Dienstleistungen - neue Normen, neue Fragen, Zugleich Besprechung zu BGH, Urt. v. 17.8.2011 - I ZR 134/10 - Auftragsbestätigung||URL DE||N/A|
|Title EN||Unsolicited goods and services - new statutes and new questions, At the same time: Discussion of the verdict of the Federal Court of Jusitce (BGH), dated 17.8.2011 - I ZR 134/10 - "Order Confirmation"||URL EN||N/A|
|Keywords||black list, unordered product, unwanted solicitations|
The author explains the application of Annex Nr. 22 and 29 UWG which implemented Annex I, item 21 and 29 of the UCP Directive into German national unfair competition law on unsolicited goods and services. He approves the decision of the Federal Court of Justice in the case titled "Order Confirmation". In that decision the court found Annex Nr. 29 UWG, that implemented Annex I, item 29 of the UCP Directive, to be applicable in situations where the trader delivers unsolicited goods but claims or gives at least the impression that there had been a prior order of the recipient. The author summarizes the scope of Annex Nr. 22 and 29 UWG and concludes that a teleological extension of the regulations is not possible. The sending of an order confirmation which announces the delivery of unsolicited goods or services and also contains a bill cannot be linked to neither Annex Nr. 22 nor Nr. 29 UWG. Instead the general regulations of § 4 Nr. 1, 3; 7 I 1 UWG will be applicable.
The author further states that the trader will not be held responsible when he mistakenly assumed an order of the recipient and that error was not in his sphere of responsibility.