In a recent ruling by the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Cologne dated 28 July 2023 (file number: 6 U 33/23), the plaintiff’s appeal against a previous ruling by the Cologne Regional Court was dismissed. The case concerned the allegedly wrongly obtained injunction against the sale of gaming chairs. The court’s decision deals with the requirements for claims for damages and the question of urgency in interim injunction proceedings.
facts
The plaintiff sells gaming chairs from a manufacturer based in China in Germany. The defendant, also a Chinese manufacturer of gaming chairs, had obtained interim injunctions against the plaintiff’s customers through a German company (S. GmbH) because they were allegedly selling counterfeit chairs. The plaintiff claims that the affidavit of the sales manager of S. GmbH, which led to the urgency of the injunctions, was incorrect in content. She demanded compensation for lost profits, legal costs and reputational damage.
Legal analysis
Urgency and affidavit
The Cologne Higher Regional Court confirmed the decision of the Cologne Regional Court that the urgency for the interim injunctions had been properly demonstrated. The plaintiff could not prove that the sales manager of S. GmbH had already been aware of the alleged imitations before the specified date. Even if the affidavits had been incorrect in content, this would not have been causal for the issuance of the injunctions, since the chambers of the Cologne Regional Court had assumed an urgency that was not refuted by any prior knowledge.
Right to compensation
The court rejected the plaintiff’s claims for damages for several reasons:
- Claim from § 945 Code of Civil Procedure: The plaintiff was not a party to the interim injunction proceedings and is therefore not entitled to compensation § 945 Code of Civil Procedure to.
- Claim from § 823 Abs. 1 BGB: No culpable misjudgment by the defendant with regard to the right to an injunction could be established. The defendant had commissioned a lawyer experienced in competition law who, after examining the factual and legal situation, had reached a justifiable legal opinion. The fact that different courts come to different conclusions is not sufficient to assume negligence.
- Claim from § 826 BGB or § 823 Abs. 2 BGB i.V.m. § 263 German Criminal Code or § 156 German Criminal Code: It could not be proven that the defendant had obtained the titles by intentionally making false statements. The information in the affidavits was not decisive for the rulings, as the presumption of urgency existed independently of them.
Conclusion
The ruling by the Cologne Higher Regional Court confirms the strict requirements for demonstrating urgency and substantiating evidence in interim injunction proceedings. It also underlines the high hurdles for claims for damages due to injunctions that were allegedly obtained through abuse of law. The decision shows that careful legal review and representation by experienced lawyers is essential in order to minimize risks in competition disputes.
For companies in competition, this ruling means that they must rely on thorough and carefully documented evidence when enforcing claims for injunctive relief. For those affected by interim injunctions, the ruling shows that claims for damages only have a chance of success if misconduct can be clearly proven. This encourages a cautious and well-founded approach in competition law disputes.
Latest articles by Attorney Jens Ferner (Specialist in IT & Criminal Law) (Show all)
