Imprint · Privacy Policy · Trademark Application · Patent Lawyers · Copyright Lawyers · Links ·

Attorneys at law

Online Form · Online Law · Sample Agreements · Domains · Dispute Resolution · Rulings · Power of attorney · Links ·

Horak online law corporate lawyer online law internet lawyer it law telecommunications it law cloud computung law escrow agreement it agreements german it lawyer germany it law computer law shop law

it lawyer information technology attorney at law german it lawyer it law firm  online law adwords law search engine law distribution law internet shop law amazon law in germany software agreement games law attorney at law

online attorney at law online law internet law telecommunications lawyer attorney at law german germany admonishment dispute resolution law german lawyer warning letter  attorneys fee consultation of a german attorney

it lawyer online attorney legal check of agreements draft agreement licence law arbitration proceedings defending against claims in germany claim in germany file a suit before german courts, european court of justice lawyer attorney

...Online Attorney ...Rulings ...Attorney-Hanover

Online Attorney 
Wilful deception 


Attorneys at Law | Lawyers

Georgstr. 48 · 30159 Hannover
Germany ·  

Tel +49/511/357356-0
Fax +49/511/357356-29 ·


The judgement of the Celle Appeal Court of 29th March 2001 (13 U 309/00)

The mere exploitation of the domain “” (“”) by an attorney-at-law constitutes misleading advertising under § 3 of the Unfair Competition Act.


Findings of fact:

The parties to the dispute are attorneys-at-law admitted before a court in (…). The plaintiff makes a claim on the defendants to cease and desist from commercially using the domain “” (“”) in the internet without any other distinctive features. The Regional Court issued the interim injunction applied for. The defendants have lodged an appeal against this ruling.

Court’s reasoning:

The appeal is unfounded.

The plaintiff is legally entitled to the asserted right to forbearance.

According to § 43b of the Federal Lawyers’ Act (Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung – BRAO) and § 6 (1) of the Occupational Regulations for the Bar (Berufsordnung der Rechtsanwälte – BORA), attorneys are allowed to inform about their professional activity objectively as to form and contents. In principle, an attorney can also present his offer on an internet home page. However, like any other advertising measure, an advertisement in the internet is inadmissible, if it violates the prohibition to mislead under § 3 of the Unfair Competition Act (Feurich/Braun, BRAO, 5. Ed., § 43 b Rdnr. 38; cf. BVerfG NJW 2000, 3195), which is the case here.

Persons who want to find the “right” lawyer by means of the internet (especially using the so called search engines), usually obtain an overview listing the respective documents including domain names. If they happen to come across the domain “”, they are likely to be mislead, since a considerable group (from the legal point of view) of average informed and reasonable internet users expects to find under such a domain designation a home page of a central service providing offers of a number of law offices in this area. Such an interpretation can be supported by the fact that – according to the statement of claim which has been substantiated by prima facie evidence – similar domain addresses – "", "", "" oder "" – already provide or are being constructed to provide a centrally prepared summary of information on attorneys-at-law.

This deception is likely to influence potential clients’ choices of an attorney-at-law in a manner pertinent to competition law. As far as that is concerned, it is sufficient that due to the misleading name “” potential clients are prompted to use the home page of the defendant, which they would probably have not found or noticed otherwise (baiting by means of misleading information: cf. Baumbach/Hefermehl, 21. Ed., § 3 UWG Rdnr. 89 a).

The necessity for urgent proceedings required for issuing interim injunction is given here.

The urgency of the matter is presumed under § 25 of the Unfair Competition Act. The defendants did not rebut the urgency presumption. There is no indication that the plaintiff had been aware of the internet name in question some time before moving for an interim injunction. Therefore, the defendants must substantiate by prima facie evidence.

The costs order is based on § 97 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.


internet lawyer it lawyer it law it specialist online lawyer online attorneys online law firm europe online lawyer germany german web lawyer media law firm deutsch online law firm online lawyer office hannover germany lowaer saxony attorney online rights ebay lawyer amazon attorney english

© German Lawyer Dipl.-Ing. Michael Horak LL.M  2002-2018

 online lawyer online attorney at law germany internet law software development agreement gaming lawyer games law germany print internet law firm internet law domain law software lawyer competition attorneys save telecommunications law lawyer attorney germanyback german-law-european-law-eurpean-lawyer-specialist-expert-german-lawOnline-Request