Hylly
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö Decision of the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof); 14 January 2016 - Case No. I ZR 65/14 : Find Friends (Freunde finden).
Julkaistu
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa IIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, ISSN 0018-9855 ; 48 (1)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. Act Against Unfair Competition Secs. 2(1) No. 1, 5(1) first and second sentences No. 1, 7(1) and (2) No. 3, case 3, 8(1), (3) a)Invitation emails sent by the provider of a social network on the Internet to recipients who are not members of the network and who have not expressly consented to receiving such emails constitute unconscionable pestering within the meaning of Sec. 7(2) No. 3 of the Act against Unfair Competition. b)With respect to the limitation period, the claimant must be attributed the knowledge acquired in the course of business by a person whom he has entrusted to deal with specific matters, in particular with the handling and pursuit of the claim in question under his own responsibility (known as a knowledge representative), by analogous application of Sec. 166(1) of the Civil Code. c)There is no attribution of the knowledge representatives private knowledge unless as an exception the claimant, for reasons of the protection of transactions, is obliged to organise an internal exchange of information that also comprises knowledge acquired privately. d)A consumer association within the meaning of Sec. 8(3) No. 3 of the Act against Unfair Competition is not to be attributed the knowledge acquired privately by its employees about third-party infringements of competition law by analogy with Sec. 166(1) of the Civil Code. e)If the provider of a social network on the Internet deceives the user during the registration process as to the manner and scope of the data use associated with the import of contact data, this is a misleading commercial practice of relevance under competition law within the meaning of Sec. 5(1) first sentence of the Act against Unfair Competition.
Asiasana - Kontrolloimaton
*00002701nab a22003014a 4500
*00111556
*00520201106111831.0
*007tu
*008170522s2017\\\\xx\|||||\||||\|||||0eng|c
*035 $a24252
*035 $a(PLib-conv)0000024252
*0410 $aeng
*090 $aOMA:SA-II10
*24500$aDecision of the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof); 14 January 2016 - Case No. I ZR 65/14 :$bFind Friends (Freunde finden).
*260 $c2017.
*300 $a115-123.
*4901 $aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v48 (1)
*520 $aAct Against Unfair Competition Secs. 2(1) No. 1, 5(1) first and second sentences No. 1, 7(1) and (2) No. 3, case 3, 8(1), (3) a)Invitation emails sent by the provider of a social network on the Internet to recipients who are not members of the network and who have not expressly consented to receiving such emails constitute unconscionable pestering within the meaning of Sec. 7(2) No. 3 of the Act against Unfair Competition. b)With respect to the limitation period, the claimant must be attributed the knowledge acquired in the course of business by a person whom he has entrusted to deal with specific matters, in particular with the handling and pursuit of the claim in question under his own responsibility (known as a knowledge representative), by analogous application of Sec. 166(1) of the Civil Code. c)There is no attribution of the knowledge representatives private knowledge unless as an exception the claimant, for reasons of the protection of transactions, is obliged to organise an internal exchange of information that also comprises knowledge acquired privately. d)A consumer association within the meaning of Sec. 8(3) No. 3 of the Act against Unfair Competition is not to be attributed the knowledge acquired privately by its employees about third-party infringements of competition law by analogy with Sec. 166(1) of the Civil Code. e)If the provider of a social network on the Internet deceives the user during the registration process as to the manner and scope of the data use associated with the import of contact data, this is a misleading commercial practice of relevance under competition law within the meaning of Sec. 5(1) first sentence of the Act against Unfair Competition.
*599 $bpdf informaatikolla.
*653 $aTIETOKANNAT
*653 $aSOSIAALINEN MEDIA
*653 $aSÄHKÖPOSTI
*653 $aMAINONTA
*653 $aLUOTETTAVUUS
*653 $aHARHAANJOHTAVUUS
*8102 $aIIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v1
*852 $hSA-II10$cDECISION
*979 $a0000024252
*999 $aMikroMarc$b[Article]$x7
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.