lawyer

a) Effective consent to telephone advertising within the meaning of § 7 Abs. 2 No.. 2 Fall 1 UWG is not available, if the consumer is confronted with a complex procedure for deselecting partner companies listed in the list when declaring consent, that can make him do it, to refrain from exercising this choice and instead to leave the choice of advertising partner to the entrepreneur. The consumer does not know due to a lack of knowledge of the content of the list and without exercising the right to vote, the products or services of which entrepreneurs recorded the consent, there is no consent for the specific case. b) § 15 Abs. 3 Set 1 TMG is with a view ...

The buyer of a domain may rely on the legitimate use of the seller,,de,The offered by name infringement balancing of interests leads,,de,that the defendant can point to their own interests worthy of protection,,de,exclude the applicant's name, a legal claim,,de,LG Cologne,,de,Domain purchase and priority,,de,The charges get dismissed,,de,The costs of litigation are imposed on the applicant,,de,The judgment is provisionally enforceable against collateral in the amount of,,de,of each amount to be enforced,,de,The parties disagree about the mutual authorization at the "T" and on a related thereto Internet Domain,,de,The applicant is registered in since,,de. Die bei Namensrechtsverletzungen gebotene Interessenabwägung führt dazu, daß der Beklagte auf eigene schützenswerte Belange verweisen kann, die einen namensrechtlichen Anspruch der Klägerin ausschließen. LG Köln zu 33 The 39/17 from 19.12.2017 – Domainkauf und Priorität … Die Klage wird abgewiesen. Die Kosten des Rechtsstreits werden der Klägerin auferlegt. Das Urteil ist vorläufig vollstreckbar gegen Sicherheitsleistung in Höhe von 110 % des jeweils zu vollstreckenden Betrages. 1 Facts: 2 Die Parteien streiten um die wechselseitige Berechtigung an der Bezeichnung „T“ sowie an einer damit in Zusammenhang stehenden Internetdomain. 3 Die Klägerin ist im Handelsregister seit 2004 unter der...

a) The clause in terms and conditions of a mobile operator, after one for transfer of SIM card “Pledge” in the amount of 29,65 € is charged, as the “Liquidated damages” will be retained, fails to return so-far the customer the card within three weeks following the expiry or termination of customer relationship in perfect condition, is ineffective. b) The clause in terms and conditions of a mobile operator, after for sending an invoice in paper form (in addition to providing an Internet Customer Portal) a separate fee accrues, is in any case ineffective, if the supplier sells the product not only of the Internet. BGH JUDGMENT III ZR 32/14 from 9. October 2014