Further success for LHR against "Anlegerschutzkanzlei": 2nd interim injunction due to unfair advertising

Back in January 2014, we reported on a case in which an “investor protection law firm” used dubious methods to “catch clients”. See: LHR obtains advertising ban against “investor protection lawyers” before the Frankfurt Regional Court

In the dispute at the time, our client’s lawyers had issued a press release accusing our client of falsifying the balance sheet without there being any indication of this. However, the press release was not limited to the mere communication of this information, but ended with a recommendation to investors to seek advice from a specialized law firm and the indication that the company itself was willing and able to provide a “free initial assessment”. The Regional Court of Frankfurt (LG Frankfurt, Beschluss v. 12.11.2013, Az. 2-03 O 425/13) then prohibited the advertising in court, the defendant immediately issued a final declaration and accepted the injunction as a final ruling.

Unfortunately, however, this was not the end of the infringement at our client’s expense. It often happens that infringers not only ignore the infringed party’s out-of-court request to stop the infringement and continue to make illegal articles publicly accessible, but even misuse the warning letter for further advertising.

Warning letter and preliminary injunction due to advertising with warning letter/preliminary injunction

This was also the case here. The colleagues had deleted the infringing post from the website. To her astonishment, however, our client instead discovered a notice that they had been forced to delete the post by means of an interim injunction. The company very much regrets this and will use all available legal means to defend itself against it. Contrary to the procedural declaration that the interim injunction issued by the Frankfurt Regional Court would be recognized as a final ruling, the investor protection lawyers presented themselves to their audience on their website almost two months later as a “combative” law firm, although they had already “pulled up stakes” shortly after being served with the interim injunction.

Naturally, our client did not want to put up with this further unlawful advertising to its detriment and, after another unsuccessful warning, applied for a further injunction for unfair, misleading advertising, which was immediately issued by the Hamburg Regional Court (LG Hamburg, Beschluss v. 14.2.2014, Az. 315 O 53/14) in accordance with the application.

Following service of the preliminary injunction, the law firm consequently issued a further declaration ending the proceedings, this time in the form of a cease-and-desist declaration with a penalty clause. The assertion of (further) claims for damages is currently being prepared by LHR and will be reserved for separate court proceedings.

Lawyer Arno Lampmann from the law firm LHR:

“In addition to the burden of an infringing initial notification, it is frustrating for the infringed party if unscrupulous business people do not remove it at all or only reluctantly and also misuse a warning letter or injunction for further advertising. Even with regard to freedom of expression, the injured party does not have to put up with this if the statements contained therein are again untrue and therefore unlawful.”

(la)

(Bild: © corund – Fotolia.com)