SEIFRIED Rechtsanwaelte

Corneliusstraße 18
60325 Frankfurt am Main

Tel. +49 69 91 50 76 0
info@seifried.pro

Our proven success in trademark law, design law, competition law, advertising law and antitrust law

We don't always win either. But we handle each mandate with the greatest care and we are particularly pleased about some of the procedures won. A selection of such recent successes is presented here:

Legal Proceedings

  • Federal Patent Court, judgment of 26 April 2018 - 27 W (pat) 511/17: We represented the owner of the trademark "Mori" to the owner of the trademark "MONARI". The latter opposed the registration of the later mark. The DPMA rejected the opposition. The Federal Patent Court shared the opinion of the DPMA that there was no likelihood of confusion between the opposition mark and the challenged mark and advised the opponent to withdraw the opposition. So did the opponent.
  • Regional Court of Düsseldorf, judgment of 27 February 2018 - 14c O 133/17: For a fashion manufacturer we took legal action against the distribution of imitations from unregistered Community designs. The infringer was ordered to cease and desist and to provide information.
     
  • Higher Regional Court of  Frankfurt, judgment of 15 February 2018 - 6 U 247/16: We represented a well-known packaging and display manufacturer in proceedings for reimbursement of costs after a patent vindication. The defendant was ordered as requested. The appeal was dismissed.
     
  • Regional Court of Düsseldorf, judgment of 07 February 2018 - 2a O 110/17: We represented the defendant in a trademark dispute. The action was dismissed.
     
  • Higher Regional Court of  Frankfurt, judgment of 29 June 2017 - 6 U 231/16: In a trademark dispute, we were appointed as date representatives for proceedings before the Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main and the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main. At the hearing, we presented documents demonstrating the emergence of a prioritised company mark that was opposed to the action mark. As a result, the action was dismissed. The Higher Regional Court upheld the decision and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal.
     
  • Federal Court of Justice of 14 June 2017 - I ZR 202/16: The BGH has rejected the non-admission complaint against the judgment of the Higher Regional Court Frankfurt 10.03.2016 - 6 U 12/15, with costs (we do not represent before the Federal Court of Justice): We represented a specialist publisher in a domain dispute against an owner of numerous two-letter domains based in the USA. Our client filed a lawsuit for violation of the right to have one of these domains released. The Frankfurt Regional Court sentenced the domain holder in accordance with the application. The appeal was rejected for a fee. Our client now owns the domain.
     
  • Hamburg Regional Court, judgment of 30 Mai 2017 - 406 HKO 10/17: In one case of supplementary protection under competition law (protection against counterfeiting under competition law), specifically the imitation of a hygiene product, we obtained a judgement on omission, information and determination of damages.
     
  • Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main, judgment of 11.05.2017 - 6 U 242/16: For a well-known manufacturer of home textiles we had obtained a preliminary injunction for omission and information because of imitation of a registered design. The appeal against the judgment of the Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main was rejected.
     
  • Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe, decision of 17.10.2016 - 6 U 22/16 (LG Mannheim, judgment of 22.01.2016 - 7 O 118/15 Kart): We represented a well-known brand manufacturer of home textiles in antitrust proceedings. An online retailer asserted an antitrust claim for delivery against them. The action was dismissed in full. The plaintiff withdrew the appeal filed against this after an appeal and a change of attorney.
     
  •  Regional Court of Frankfurt, judgment of 20.07.2016 - 2-06 O 422/15: For a well-known textile manufacturer we took action against imitations of designs through an online shop. This is one of Europe's largest retail groups. The proceedings were conducted as main proceedings after previous injunction proceedings had been won. The operator of the online shop was convicted as requested. The counterclaim for annulment of the designs was rejected. According to information, damages were paid.
     
  • Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, settlement of 05.07.2016 - I-20 U 137/15, judgment of the LG Düsseldorf of 25.09.2015 - 34 O 109/14. In a complicated trademark case, we represented the plaintiff, a supplier of electrical equipment, against an electrical equipment wholesaler. The core of the legal dispute concerned trademark exhaustion. The Düsseldorf Regional Court accepted exhaustion and dismissed the action. We appealed against this because we still assumed that no exhaustion had occurred. The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf agreed with us and recommended a settlement that included the requested ban and obligated the opponent to pay the costs of litigation and settlement. The settlement was closed.
     
  • Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart, 17.03.2016 - 2 U 140/15: We represented a real estate agent. A competitor filed an application for an injunction against the latter on the grounds of a complaint which, in the competitor's opinion, violated the "buyer's principle" (§ 2 Paragraph 1a) WoVermittG). This was also issued by the Stuttgart Regional Court. We appealed against this and appealed the judgment both under substantive and procedural law due to the lack of urgency. In any case, the Higher Regional Court also considered the urgency to be refuted. The competitor had withdrawn its request for disposition.
     
  • Regional Court of Düsseldorf, 08.03.2016 - 14c O 166/15: We represented a fashion label in a design infringement case. The opponent claims to have an unregistered Community design and had first obtained an injunction and then filed applications for a fine and periodic penalty payment. We challenged the restraining order on the grounds of legitimacy and lack of service. At the hearing, the court was of our opinion on this matter, which meant that the opponent could no longer win the injunction procedure. In the subsequent settlement, we were able to reduce the original claim for damages by about 2/3 and persuade the opponent to withdraw the administrative and penalty payment proceedings and the main proceedings, which have meanwhile been instituted. In addition, the opponent undertook to pay substantial court and lawyer's fees.

  • Regional Court of Gießen, Kostenbeschluss v. 26.03.2015 - 6 O 57/14: We represented a wholesaler for electronic articles against a mass dissuader, represented by "warning lawyers". Following our statement of defence, in which we gave a comprehensive account of the abuse of rights, the action was withdrawn.

  • OHIM Cancellation No 8811 C (Invalidity), 11.05.2015: The Community trademark (today: Union trademark) of our clients has been attacked in nullity proceedings based on an earlier Cypriot, Greek, Italian and an earlier Community trademark. The application for annulment was rejected in its entirety.

  • Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main, judgment of 10.06.2015 - 3-08 O 8/15: Our client was annoyed by a provider of earphones who advertised his earphones as "high-end technology" in his online shop. In fact, these were technically simple Asian imports. The regional court followed our opinion that this was a deception.

  • Regional Court of Düsseldorf, decision of 23.10.2014 - 38 O 103/14: We represented a trademark owner against a wholesaler in preliminary injunction proceedings for infringement of the trademark and the company logo through the sale of electrical appliances. The wholesaler was fully convicted and issued a final declaration.

  • Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt, decision of 05.11.2014 - 6 U 183/14: We represented a wholesaler for electronic articles against a supplier of in-ear headphones (earphones) in a large wave of warnings on the defendant side in the first and second instance. He claimed that the earphones and their packaging had various labelling defects. Already in the first instance (LG Gießen, judgment of 10.09.2014 - 8 O 29/14), the order for a resolution initially issued against our client was revoked in full. The Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt had confirmed the ruling and dismissed the appeal.

  • Regional Court of Frankfurt judgment of 12.11.2014 - 2-06 O 239/14: We represented a personnel service provider in an online directory for violation of his company registration number. The claims were acknowledged at the hearing.

  • Regional Court of Krefeld, judgement of 27.05.2014, Az. 12 O 96/13: We defended a fashion manufacturer against the accusation of having offered counterfeit winter jackets and coats for women. The action brought by another fashion manufacturer based on the so-called supplementary protection of performance under competition law was rejected in its entirety.