Monday, September 22, 2014

Nickel free? Warning by farmer and partner lawyers gbr for NB … –

I have received the warning of an eBay trader by the farmer and partner gbr lawyers for the NB Technologie GmbH. In the warning letter it is stated that the NB Technologie GmbH sole owner of the rights of the European patent no. 2209924 ( , cc = EP ) is, which involve use and licensing not nickel-alloyed stainless steel for watches, watch parts, jewelry, piercings, etc.

In the present me warning it says then, from “. secured documented Offered “is clear that my client” without contractor / licensee “to be the NB Technologie GmbH or to have been, on eBay,” a variety of stainless steel jewelry pieces “and offering them here as” apply nickel free “. This is anticompetitive. “Would have actually consisted of nickel-free material / exist” Even if these articles, been a violation of the rights of NB Technologie GmbH ago.

The present case therefore arises ultimately so is that the NB technology itself in is uncertain as to whether and which infringement could be here. Nevertheless, a large penalty clause commitment is required and otherwise the use of “legal assistance – possibly by way of interim relief.” – Promised

In the warning letter, reference is then made to three judgments of the District Court Stuttgart, the. OLG Stuttgart and the Supreme Court. The two instance court decisions exist and lie in front of me. The Supreme Court has informed me on demand at 03:09:14: “(…) In the process I ZR 43/13 was issued on April 10, 2014 judgment. The decision is not yet before reasoned. (…) “.

In the warning letter alleges that” there highest court in favor of “NB Technologie GmbH” clarified facts “is” the same as the local “and it is a supposedly legitimate claim for damages in the amount of € 50,000.00 placed in the room as a license analogy. Along with the scheduled omission in dispute of € 30,000.00 for a total of € 80,000.00, would be € 1,752.90 Abmahnkosten “refund” to.

Upon payment of a “lump sum” in the amount of € 3,000.00 and delivering a “necessary here penalty clause declaration” but could the claims of NB Technologie GmbH are paid.

A process of a dispute value of € 80,000 would be alone in the first instance at least one process cost risk of € 11,391.83 involve net . Would at the alleged patent dispute patent attorneys still consulted, the costs were much higher. They would also alleged immense damages in case of defeat. When you play with the idea, unaudited enter into your case to the demands of Abmahner, they read on. Especially since the release of the warning accompanying penalty clause undertaking can have ruinous consequences, if it is in breach of it.

Have you received such a warning? Then, initially, we have

  • to remain calm and
  • the specific case times by counsel, to let about a “lawyer specializing in Intellectual Property Law” check.
  • In any case, the pre-defined penalty clause declaration should be signed unaudited or the required payments are made without verification.

In the present me warning remains unclear which violation is accused my client base. It can be M.E. well argue that meet Abmahner their primary burden of proof in any way. The alleged violation of a technical protection law is fundamentally different from unfair competition. This is against a patent infringement no “less” or “more”, a different behavior is rather attacked and found possible in the room, which is thus an aliud represents.

In addition, the reference to the judgments of the Court Stuttgart from 19/06/12 (Gesch no .: 17 O 651/11 ), the OLG Stuttgart from 7.2.13 (Gesch -nr .: 2 U 123/12 ) and BGH from 10:04:14 (I ZR 43/13 Az .: ) in the present my case mE misleading. In those judgments the Court Stuttgart and the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court was only about the competitive nature of advertising for jewelery as nickel-free, provided that nickel was alloyed decided. There, the local applicant had evidenced by the facts acquired two pieces of jewelry from the defendant and later conduct an X-ray analysis hallway essence with the result that there Nickel shares were included in the jewelery. All this was in the case before me, but as far as can be seen below. It remains unclear whether the case treated in the judgments of the Court Stuttgart and the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court is “the same as the local”. This can be as Berühmung a judicial confirmation of view of alleged rights that had not been spoken in this form in reality.

The warning is still present me to other vulnerable points, which in the context of this brief but too far would result.

In each case, however, should be checked once a lawyer, whether the warning may be rejected because of uncertainty or inconsistency or should. If applicable can also counter-claims are made. Patent solutions that match “all cases” does not exist.

has to be carefully decided from case to case, also due to the high amount in dispute is how best to proceed. Modified – – In part, the delivery of a can. Desist letter without acknowledging any liability nevertheless legally binding come into question, in other cases, protection fonts should be stored, etc.

If you have received such a warning, so call immediately after receipt of the warning letter to a lawyer specializing in intellectual property law and discuss with him how to proceed. You are welcome in this respect nationwide at Lawyer Dr. Lars Jaeschke, LL.M. ( lawyer specializing in intellectual property law ) contact.


No comments:

Post a Comment