Successes of SEIFRIED IP

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:

Proceedings before Regional Courts and Higher Regional Courts

• Munich Regional Court I, Order of 28 April 2026, 33 O 2485/26: In interim injunction proceedings, our client sought to prevent our client from lodging a legal complaint regarding an app in the Apple Store. Following our response, the application was dismissed in its entirety.
   
• Nuremberg-Fürth Regional Court, 19 O 256/26, withdrawal of the application on 14 April 2026 following a previously issued interim injunction by the Cologne Regional Court on 24 November 2025, 33 O 402/25: In proceedings 33 O 402/25, the Regional Court of Cologne had, by a preliminary injunction dated 24 November 2025, prohibited our client from lodging a complaint with Amazon regarding allegedly infringing products on the Marketplace. We lodged an objection to this, challenging, amongst other things, the lack of local jurisdiction of the Regional Court of Cologne, in order to prevent the same court from ruling on the objection. The Regional Court of Cologne accepted our argument and referred the legal dispute to the Regional Court of Nuremberg-Fürth. Following instructions from the Regional Court of Nuremberg-Fürth, the applicant withdrew his application for an injunction.
   
• Hamburg Regional Court, interim injunction of 6 March 2026 – 327 O 77/26: On behalf of one of Germany’s best-known aid organisations, with over 30,000 employees, we secured an interim injunction against a competitor for unfair marketing practices relating to home emergency call services.
   
• Düsseldorf Regional Court, interim injunction of 2 December 2025 – 14c O 163/25: We represented the applicant in interim injunction proceedings concerning supplementary protection under competition law. The interim injunction was granted as requested. The opposing party has submitted a final declaration.
   
• Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Hamburg, notice dated 27 November 2025 – 3 U 39/25: We represented the respondent in preliminary injunction proceedings concerning trademark infringement and violations of competition law. The Hamburg Regional Court ruled against our client as requested. We had filed an appeal on behalf of our client. After the Higher Regional Court indicated that the appeal was likely to be successful in its entirety, the applicant withdrew the application for an injunction.
   
• Frankfurt am Main Regional Court, decision of April 8, 2025 – 2-06 O 123/25: We enforced one trademark and five competition law injunctive relief claims on behalf of a mattress manufacturer in preliminary injunction proceedings. The preliminary injunction was granted in full. The opposing party acknowledged the preliminary injunction in full with a final declaration.
   
• Düsseldorf District Court, judgment of 21 March 2025 – 38 O 262/23: In a case of alleged trademark infringement, we were the third trademark law firm retained by our defendant client and the first law firm to grasp the point of the facts of the case, namely that the owner of an earlier company designation can invoke this designation against the plaintiff suing on the basis of an EU trade mark. The action for trademark infringement was dismissed by 4/5. In post-trial negotiations, it was agreed that the plaintiff would waive enforcement of the remaining claims.
   
• Kammergericht Berlin (Berlin Higher Regional Court), judgment of December 3, 2024 - 5 U 131/21: We represented the plaintiff in a trademark dispute against a well-known international Societas Europaea (SE) in the food sector and its (former) executive board. After the Berlin Regional Court had initially dismissed the action, we advised the plaintiff to appeal. The Kammergericht ruled in our favor and ordered the opposing SE and its former board of directors to cease and desist, provide information and determine damages.
   
• Hamburg Regional Court, partial judgment of November 29, 2024 - 310 O 187/21: We represented the defendant distribution company in an extensive lawsuit for infringement of numerous community design rights for components. After taking evidence, during which we questioned the witness about the plaintiff's alleged license agreement, the court ruled that the existence of the license had not been proven and dismissed the claim. At our request, the ECJ must still decide on the invalidity of one of the design patents in dispute..
   
• Higher Regional Court of Cologne, decision of November 29, 2024 - 6 U 63/23: In a copyright matter involving the alleged adoption of PowerPoint slides, which in the court of appeal was extended to include (see below, judgment of the Regional Court of Cologne of May 16, 2024 - 14 O 462/21), the opposing plaintiff withdrew the appeal after the Senate's instructions.
   
• Higher Regional Court Frankfurt am Main, decision of July 15, 2024 - 11 U 23/24: In preliminary injunction proceedings, our client was held liable for unsolicited email advertising. The Higher Regional Court confirmed our legal opinion that the application for a preliminary injunction was to be dismissed due to a lack of urgency.
   
• Regional Court of Cologne, judgment of May 16, 2024 - 14 O 462/21: We represented the defendant, a Swiss stock corporation, in a copyright dispute regarding alleged takeovers from medical presentations. The claim was dismissed.
   
• Regional Court Frankfurt am Main, decision of 17.8.2023 - 2-03 O 536/23: In preliminary injunction proceedings, we enforced a claim for injunctive relief against the online edition of a newspaper due to business infringement.
   
• Regional Court of Saarbrücken, order dated 3.3.2023 - 7 O 83/22: Our client had e-bikes manufactured. She defended herself against the distribution of similar e-bikes and against the adoption of the operating instructions by a competitor. After issuing a cease-and-desist declaration with a penalty clause, we brought an action for information about the scope of the infringement. During the court proceedings, the defendant provided information. The legal dispute was declared settled. The defendant had to bear the costs of the proceedings. It also paid the demanded warning costs and the calculated damages in full.
   
• Düsseldorf Regional Court, judgment dated February 16, 2023 - 14 c O 87/22: In preliminary injunction proceedings for infringement of a Community design, we represented one of the two defendants. The latter was accused of having participated in the infringement. The preliminary injunction already issued was lifted upon our opposition.
   
• Frankfurt am Main Higher Regional Court, judgment dated November 10, 2022 - 6 U 225/21: Our client was wrongly warned about an alleged infringement of competition law. We brought an action for a negative declaratory judgment against the person issuing the warning. The Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt ruled in our favor and dismissed the warning party's appeal against the first-instance conviction.
   
• Frankfurt am Main Regional Court, judgment of 05.05.2022 - 2-03 O 230/20: In a competition lawsuit, we represented a Swiss stock corporation and its legal representatives as defendants. The plaintiff had accused them of making misleading claims about the plaintiff. Through our questioning of witnesses at the hearing of evidence, the main witness proved to be a commission and fee witness. The claim was dismissed.
   
• Frankfurt am Main Regional Court, judgment of 19.08.2021 - 2-03 O 519/19: We represented a personnel service provider and its managing director in a trademark law matter concerning infringement of a trademark and a company logo. The Regional Court dismissed the action in its entirety due to a lack of likelihood of confusion.
   
• Bochum Regional Court, judgment of 17.08.2021 - I-20 O 180/19: We represented an online retailer as defendant in a competition law case. A competitor had sued for payment of a contractual penalty after submission of a cease-and-desist declaration with penalty clause. In an extension of the complaint, the plaintiff also sought an injunction. We filed a motion to dismiss the action. With regard to the extension of the claim, we invoked the statute of limitations. The Bochum Regional Court dismissed the action in its entirety.
   
• Munich Higher Regional Court, judgment dated August 5, 2021 - 29 U 6406/20: We represented an online retailer in preliminary injunction proceedings. In the first instance, the latter was partially condemned by the Munich Regional Court I for alleged infringement of the trademarks "Isha" and "Risa". We appealed against this decision. Among other things, we pleaded abuse of rights on the grounds of title fraud due to failure to submit our pre-court correspondence. The Higher Regional Court ruled in our favor: In the appeal, the application for an injunction was dismissed in its entirety on the grounds of abuse of rights (evasion of title due to failure to produce our pre-litigation correspondence).
   
• Regional Court of Stuttgart, judgment of July 13, 2021 - 17 O 559/21: In preliminary injunction proceedings, we represented an online retailer for alleged infringement of the trademark "Frida Kahlo". The injunction application was dismissed.
   
• Frankfurt am Main Regional Court, judgment dated April 23, 2021 - 3-10 O 20/20: In a competition law case, we represented an online retailer against another online retailer who was in breach of the obligation to indicate the basic price under the Price Indication Ordinance. After we had already obtained a prohibition in accordance with the application in the previous preliminary injunction proceedings, this was repeated in the main proceedings.
   
• Düsseldorf Regional Court, judgment dated January 13, 2021 - 2a O 241/19: On behalf of the owner of a fashion brand, we took action against unauthorized use of this brand for children's clothing. The Regional Court condemned the trademark infringer as requested.
   
• Frankfurt am Main Regional Court, default judgment dated December 16, 2020 - 2-06 O 041/20: A client was warned five times within a short period of time by a competitor for various competition law infringements. Following an unfounded warning under competition law, we filed a negative declaratory action. No one appeared for the competitor at the hearing. The default judgment was issued as requested. The competitor discontinued its warning letters.
   
• Frankfurt am Main Regional Court, default judgment dated November 6, 2020 - 3-10 O 20/20: On behalf of a client who sells food online, we took action against a competitor in a competition law case on the grounds of infringements of labeling regulations. After the preliminary injunction had already been issued in accordance with the application, the defendant did not appear in the main proceedings. The default judgment was issued in accordance with the application.
   
• Essen Regional Court, court-recorded settlement dated March 18, 2020 - 9 O 60/20: We represented Europe's largest lingerie manufacturer in preliminary injunction proceedings. The manufacturer was confronted with a high claim from a model. Allegedly, the model's photos had been used without authorization. After the model began to warn our client's customers, we applied for a preliminary injunction against the model on the grounds of unauthorized customer warning. At the hearing, the parties reached a settlement. The model submitted a cease-and-desist declaration with a penalty clause. Our client paid an amount equivalent to 6% of the demanded sum.
   
• Frankfurt am Main Regional Court, preliminary injunction of January 23, 2020 - 3-10 O 7/20: On behalf of a client who sells food online, we took action in competition law proceedings against a competitor for violations of labeling regulations. The preliminary injunction was granted as requested.

Recent proceedings before the Trademark Offices (DPMA and EUIPO)

• DPMA, decision of 12 April 2024: We represented the owner of the trademark H Harvest LTI in the opposition proceedings 30 2021 225 757.3 of the owner of the trademark "HARVEST". The Office followed our argumentation that the sign "HARVEST" is only very weak for the claimed services. The opposition was rejected.
• Bundespatentgericht v. 3.1.2023 - 26 W (pat) 23/22: We represented the trademark owner in trademark invalidity proceedings. The application for revocation was rejected by the DPMA. In the subsequent appeal proceedings, the cancellation applicant requested reinstatement in the prior state of affairs. After our comments and the reference of the BPatG, the cancellation applicant withdrew its revocation request.
• EUIPO, Invalidity Proceedings No. ICD ICD 115 912, Decision of 10/26/2022: The Community design 000222070-0006 is declared invalid upon our request.
• EUIPO, Invalidity Proceedings No. ICD 115911, Decision dated 10/18/2022: Community design 000222070-0009 is declared invalid upon our request.
• EUIPO, Invalidity Proceedings No. ICD 115910, Decision of 10/13/2022: Community design 000222070-0003 is declared invalid upon our request.