press release of BGH
The Senate has once again betting on the question of the competitive nature of the private provision of sports betting and other (casino games) are on the Internet. At the core of the disputes are now both the prohibition of the organizer and conveying public gambling and the advertising ban on gambling in the public approval on 1 Which came into force in January 2008 State Treaty on gaming.
The applicant of the lottery companies to cease to provide information and admission of liability for damages claimed in respect of domestic and foreign betting companies presented and applied for their sports betting services under their respective domain names on the Internet, which could be adopted by players in any case in Germany. Them each a violation of provisions of the Penal Code and the State Treaty on gaming is accused (§ 4 No. 11 UWG in connection with § § 284, 287 of the Penal Code and § 4 para 4, § 5 para 3 and 4, GST).
The lower courts have recognized in different ways: The majority of the district courts and courts of appeal may (OLG Köln, ZfWG 2010, 359; OLG Bremen, ZfWG 2010, 105; I ZR 43/10 - not published) the claims - sometimes only second instance - in full granted, or substantially because of such an infringement (OLG Frankfurt am Main, ZfWG 2009, 268; OLG Frankfurt am Main, MMR 2009, 577). In contrast, the District Court of Munich I, and the Higher Regional Court of Munich have rejected the claim in full (I ZR 189/08).
The courts of appeals - with the exception of the Higher Regional Court of Munich (Revision has been approved by the Federal Court) - have approved the revision. The Federal Court will have to decide whether the assessment of the courts of appeals is correct. He will have to decide in particular the manner in which the services in question are unfair private betting offers and Apply it on the internet for a violation of the provisions of the State Treaty on gaming and whether any restrictions with the higher-ranking union legal services and freedom of establishment (Articles 49 and 56 of Treaty) are consistent.
hearing: 17 March 2011
lower courts: I ZR 189/08
- Competition Law
LG München I: Judgement of 4 HK O 11552/06 of 16 December 2007
OLG München: Judgement of 29 U 1669/08 of 16 October 2008
I ZR 89/09 - Competition Law
LG Wiesbaden: Judgement of 11 O 56/06 of 28 March 2007
OLG Frankfurt: Case 6 U 93/07 of 4 June 2009
I ZR 92/09 - Competition Law
LG Wiesbaden: Case 13 O 119/06 of 29 November.2007
OLG Frankfurt am Main: Case 6 U 261/06 of 4 June 2009
I ZR 30/10 - Competition
LG Bremen: Case 12 O 379/06 of 20 December 2007
OLG Bremen: Judgement 2 U 4 / 08 of 29 January 2010
I ZR 43/10 - Competition Law
LG Bremen: Case 12 O 333/07 of 31 July 2008
OLG Bremen: Judgement 2 U 96/08 of 12 February 2010
I ZR 93/10 - Competition Law
LG Köln: Case 31 O 599/08 of 9 July 2009
OLG Köln: Case 6 U 142/09 of 12 May 2010
www.wettrecht.de 0700 / COMPETITION LAW 
0 comments:
Post a Comment