Purpose
The skill examines the requirements and drafts the application for a preliminary injunction due to a UWG infringement. It addresses both the applicant side (obtaining urgent legal protection) and the respondent side (filing a protective brief, opposition / appeal, application for revocation). The focus is on the presumption of urgency under § 12 I UWG, its self-rebuttal and the strict enforcement deadline under § 929 II ZPO.
Inputs
- specific UWG infringement (wording of the advertising, date of publication, medium)
- Date of first knowledge of the applicant (decisive for urgency)
- standing to sue (competitor, association §§ 8, 8b)
- cease-and-desist letter already issued? (response, deadline)
- client's position: applicant, respondent, or preventive (protective brief)
- desired type of proceedings: injunction by order or injunction after oral hearing
Sub-agent architecture
Researcher provides UWG statutes (§§ 8, 12), ZPO statutes (§§ 935, 940, 929 II, 937 II, 945, 927, 32) and BGH/OLG case law on the presumption of urgency. Drafter examines the claim for injunctive relief and the ground for injunctive relief in judgment style and drafts the operative part of the application / protective brief. Reviewer examines self-rebuttal and the critical enforcement deadline § 929 II ZPO.
Procedure
1. Claim for injunctive relief
Substantive-law claim for cessation and desistance under § 8 I in conjunction with a UWG element (§§ 3, 3 III in conjunction with Annex, 3a, 4, 4a, 5, 5a, 5b, 6, 7 UWG). Standing to sue under § 8 III, § 8b UWG. Making credible § 294 ZPO by affidavit, screenshots, advertising materials, private expert opinions.
2. Ground for injunctive relief (§ 12 I UWG)
§ 12 I UWG contains a statutory presumption of urgency for UWG cessation and desistance claims. The applicant does not have to separately set outthe ground for injunctive relief; the respondent can rebut the presumption.
Self-rebuttal by waiting: anyone who waits too long despite knowledge of the infringement shows that it is not urgent for them (OLG case law, regionally inconsistent):
| OLG district | rule of thumb maximum waiting period |
|---|---|
| OLG München, OLG Hamburg | approx. 1 month from knowledge [unverifiziert – prüfen in juris] |
| OLG Köln, OLG Düsseldorf | approx. 6 weeks [unverifiziert] |
| OLG Frankfurt | approx. 6–8 weeks [unverifiziert] |
Date of first knowledge must be documented by affidavit. Between knowledge and application there are as a rule: cease-and-desist letter (deadline 1 week), response, drafting of the application. These steps are in principle "harmless to urgency" if carried out promptly.
3. Procedural course §§ 935, 940, 937 II ZPO
- Application: in writing to the competent court (subject-matter jurisdiction: Regional Court, § 14 I UWG; local jurisdiction at the place of commission, § 14 II UWG in conjunction with § 32 ZPO)
- Decision without oral hearing permissible (§ 937 II ZPO), in particular in urgent cases
- Order by way of injunction or judgment after oral hearing
- in the case of an order by way of injunction: no hearing of the opponent, but a protective brief is taken into account
4. Register of protective briefs
If a preliminary injunction is imminent, the potential respondent may file a protective brief with the central electronic register of protective briefs (ZSSR, § 945a ZPO). Effect: The court must take the protective brief into account in its decision.
Content of the protective brief:
- anticipated defense against the imminent application
- contestation of standing to sue / of the UWG infringement / of urgency
- references to one's own position (e.g. absence of risk of repetition after a cease-and-desist declaration has been submitted)
5. Enforcement § 929 II ZPO — the critical one-month time limit
An injunction issued by way of order must be enforced within one month of service on the applicant , otherwise it may be revoked under § 927 ZPO (BGH, settled case-law) [unverifiziert – prüfen in juris].
Enforcement takes place by:
- service by the parties of the injunction on the respondent by the bailiff
- in the case of a cease-and-desist injunction, service suffices (no separate enforcement act required)
Practical risk: The time limit begins with service on the applicant (or its lawyer), not with issuance. Default = the injunction is revoked on the respondent's application (§ 927 ZPO).
6. Remedies of the respondent
| Type of proceedings | Remedy | Time limit |
|---|---|---|
| Order by way of injunction | Objection (§ 924 ZPO) | no statutory time limit, but de facto urgent |
| Judgment by way of injunction | Appeal (§ 511 ZPO) | 1 month (§ 517 ZPO), statement of grounds 2 months (§ 520 II ZPO) |
| Default in meeting the enforcement time limit | Application for revocation (§ 927 ZPO) | at any time after expiry of the time limit |
| Cessation of the ground for the injunction | Application for revocation (§ 927 ZPO) | at any time |
7. Damages § 945 ZPO
If the injunction is revoked as unjustified from the outset , the applicant is liable to the respondent for damages irrespective of fault (§ 945 ZPO; BGH, settled case-law) [unverifiziert – prüfen in juris]. Significant risk position to be addressed before filing the application.
Sources and citation
Binding: ../../../references/zitierweise.md.
Statutes
- § 8 UWG (cease-and-desist claim)
- § 12 UWG (preliminary injunction, presumption of urgency)
- § 14 UWG (subject-matter/local jurisdiction)
- § 935 ZPO (preliminary injunction in general)
- § 940 ZPO (regulation injunction)
- § 937 ZPO (proceedings, para. II — without oral hearing)
- § 929 ZPO (enforcement deadline)
- § 927 ZPO (revocation)
- § 945 ZPO (damages)
- § 945a ZPO (protective brief register)
- § 32 ZPO (place of jurisdiction for tortious acts)
- § 517 ZPO (appeal deadline)
Commentaries
- Köhler, in: Köhler/Bornkamm/Feddersen, UWG, current edition in each case, § 12 UWG marginal no. 1 et seq.
- Berneke/Schüttpelz, Die einstweilige Verfügung in Wettbewerbssachen, 4th ed. 2022
- Vollkommer, in: Zöller, ZPO, 35th ed. 2024, § 929 ZPO marginal no. 1 et seq.
- Drescher, in: MüKoZPO, 6th ed. 2020, § 935 ZPO marginal no. 1 et seq.
Case law ([unverifiziert – prüfen in juris])
- BGH, judgment of 01.07.1999 – I ZR 244/96, GRUR 2000, 151 – Cookies (urgency)
[unverifiziert] - OLG München, order of 28.07.2016 – 6 W 1144/16, GRUR-RR 2016, 506 (self-contradiction)
[unverifiziert] - BGH, judgment of 22.10.2009 – I ZR 58/07, GRUR 2010, 253 – Fischdosendeckel (enforcement § 929 II ZPO)
[unverifiziert] - BGH, order of 15.07.2021 – I ZB 11/20, GRUR 2021, 1196 (revocation § 927 ZPO)
[unverifiziert]
Output format (applicant's perspective)
ANTRAG AUF ERLASS EINER EINSTWEILIGEN VERFÜGUNG
An das Landgericht <Ort>
- Kammer für Handelssachen / Wettbewerbskammer -
In Sachen
Antragstellerin: <Firma, Anschrift, vertreten durch …>
Antragsgegnerin: <Firma, Anschrift>
wegen Unterlassung nach §§ 8, 3, 5 UWG
A. Antrag
Der Antragsgegnerin wird im Wege der einstweiligen Verfügung,
bei Meidung eines vom Gericht für jeden Fall der Zuwiderhandlung
festzusetzenden Ordnungsgeldes bis zu 250.000 EUR, ersatzweise
Ordnungshaft, oder Ordnungshaft bis zu 6 Monaten (§ 890 ZPO),
untersagt,
im geschäftlichen Verkehr zu Wettbewerbszwecken
<konkrete Verletzungsform, möglichst wörtlich oder mit Abbildung>
zu werben und/oder werben zu lassen.
B. Begründung
I. Sachverhalt (mit Erstkenntnis-Datum)
II. Verfügungsanspruch
1. Aktivlegitimation §§ 8 III, 8b UWG
2. UWG-Verstoß
– konkret subsumierte Norm (§§ 5 / 5a / 5b / 6 / 7 / …)
– Verkehrsauffassung Durchschnittsverbraucher
3. Glaubhaftmachung (eV, Screenshots, Anlagen)
III. Verfügungsgrund § 12 I UWG
1. Dringlichkeitsvermutung
2. Keine Selbstwiderlegung (Zeitablauf seit Erstkenntnis)
IV. Zuständigkeit § 14 UWG iVm § 32 ZPO
C. Anlagen
– eV des Geschäftsführers (Erstkenntnis-Datum)
– Screenshot der beanstandeten Werbung
– ggf. erfolglose Abmahnung
– Berechnung des Streitwerts
Antrag, ohne mündliche Verhandlung zu entscheiden (§ 937 II ZPO),
hilfsweise Termin zur mündlichen Verhandlung anzuberaumen.
<Ort, Datum, Anwaltsunterschrift>
[Frist-Erinnerung intern:
– Vollziehung § 929 II ZPO: innerhalb 1 Monat ab Zustellung
der Verfügung an Antragsteller, Datum Wiedervorlage: ___
– Verjährung § 11 UWG: ___
]
Example (excerpt, judgment style in the application)
III. Grounds for the order. The grounds for the order follow from § 12 I UWG. The statutory presumption of urgency has not been rebutted. The applicant first became aware of the advertising complained of on TT.MM.JJJJ (Anl. ASt 3, affidavit of the managing director). It issued a cease-and-desist letter on TT+5.MM.JJJJ; after the respondent rejected the modified cease-and-desist declaration on TT+12.MM.JJJJ, the present application was filed within a further 9 days. A period totaling 21 days between knowledge and filing of the application falls within the framework that is harmless to urgency under the case law of the LG / OLG (cf. OLG , order of …
[unverifiziert – prüfen]).
Risks / typical mistakes
- Date of first knowledge not documented — presumption of urgency is rebutted in the defense.
- Waiting too long — self-contradiction; depending on the OLG district, 4–8 weeks is critical.
- Operative part of the application too broad (“any misleading advertising”) — lack of definiteness, rejection.
- Operative part of the application too narrow — the core theory is circumvented by the respondent through slight variation.
- Enforcement deadline under § 929 II ZPO missed — revocation under § 927 ZPO. Resubmission mandatory.
- Making it credible weak — affidavit without date/place, screenshots without URL, missing documentation of the facts.
- Risk under § 945 ZPO underestimated — in the case of an injunction wrongfully obtained, strict liability of the applicant for damages.
- Forgot protective writs register (respondent's perspective) — injunction by order possible without a hearing.