Purpose
In trademark law, the cease-and-desist letter is the usual gateway to the injunction claim. Formally defective cease-and-desist letters do not trigger reimbursement of costs and can give rise to a counterclaim for unjustified warning of infringement of a protective right.
Inputs
- Protected trademark (word/figurative mark, registration number, DPMA / EUIPO)
- Infringing act (wording, images, domain, manner of use)
- Reputation of the trademark (standard vs. well-known § 14 para. 2 no. 3 MarkenG)
- Relevant public and similarity of goods
- Prior history (earlier cease-and-desist letters / requests for authorization)
Procedure
1. Check status of the protective right
- Trademark registration (class, territory, registration date)
- Obligation to use § 25 MarkenG (5-year period)
- Pending cancellation proceedings?
- Geographical scope of protection (DE / EU / WIPO)
2. Infringing act § 14 MarkenG
Elements of the offense
- § 14 para. 2 no. 1: Identical signs + identical goods = double identity
- § 14 para. 2 no. 2: Likelihood of confusion (similarity of signs and goods)
- § 14 para. 2 no. 3: Well-known trademark, exploitation or impairment of distinctive character / reputation
Claims
- Injunction § 14 para. 5 MarkenG
- Damages § 14 para. 6 MarkenG (three calculation methods: concrete damage, infringer's profit, license analogy)
- Information § 19 MarkenG
- Destruction / recall § 18 MarkenG
3. Cease-and-desist letter — mandatory contents
- Precisely designated infringing act (wording, placement, date, evidence)
- Trademark law with registration number
- Demand for injunction + penalty-backed cease-and-desist declaration for acceptance (modifiable)
- Deadline for acceptance (customary: 1–2 weeks; short but reasonable)
- Attorney's fees reimbursement claim under RVG (§§ 13 et seq., schedule of fees)
- Reservation of damages
4. Response to cease-and-desist letter
| Response | Effect |
|---|---|
| Sign penalty-backed cease-and-desist declaration | Risk of repetition ceases; contractual penalty in case of repetition |
| Sign with modifications | Effectiveness depends on the scope |
| Negative declaratory action | If cease-and-desist letter is unjustified |
| Silence | Risk of repetition remains, action / preliminary injunction looms |
5. Request for authorization (instead of cease-and-desist letter)
Pure requests for information without threatening legal action: no lawyer's fees reimbursable, milder means.
6. Unjustified warning of infringement of a protected right
In the case of an objectively unjustified warning letter, the trademark owner is liable to the party warned for damages (§§ 823, 826 BGB) and injunctive relief. BGH case law: high requirements — the party issuing the warning does not have to "bind itself to a legal assessment in every case" as long as it has adopted a tenable position.
7. Statute of limitations
§ 20 MarkenG: 3 years from knowledge and receipt — otherwise the regular statute of limitations under the BGB.
8. Special case of domain infringements
Domain as trademark use: the BGH generally affirms this when the relevant public recognizes the mark. UDRP / DENIC dispute resolution as alternative proceedings.
Sources
Statute
- § 14 MarkenG, § 15 MarkenG
- §§ 18, 19, 20, 25 MarkenG
- §§ 8, 12 UWG (cumulative under unfair competition law)
- § 23 RVG (costs)
- Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (EUTMR) (EU trade mark)
Commentaries
- Ströbele / Hacker, MarkenG, 14th ed. 2023
- Ingerl / Rohnke, Markengesetz, 4th ed. 2022
- BeckOK MarkenG (Online)
Case law
- BGH, judgment of 24.04.2014 – I ZR 22/13, NJW 2014, 3438 (double identity)
[unverifiziert – prüfen] - ECJ, judgment of 18.06.2009 – C-487/07 (L'Oréal/Bellure)
[unverifiziert – prüfen](well-known mark) - BGH, judgment of 22.11.2007 – I ZR 60/05, GRUR 2008, 614
[unverifiziert – prüfen](warning letter)
Output format
ABMAHNUNG MARKENRECHTSVERLETZUNG — <Mandant Markeninhaber> — <Datum>
I. Geschützte Marke
Eintragungsnummer: <DE / EUIPO Nr.>
Wort/Bild: <…>
Klassen: <…>
Benutzungspflicht erfüllt: [✓ / 🟡]
II. Verletzungshandlung
Tatbestand: [§ 14 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 / 2 / 3]
Konkret: <…>
Belege (Anlagen): <…>
III. Ansprüche
Unterlassung: [ja]
Schadensersatz Methode: [Lizenzanalogie / Verletzergewinn / konkret]
Auskunft § 19: [ja]
Vernichtung / Rückruf: [optional]
IV. Strafbewehrte Unterlassungserklärung (Entwurf):
<Wortlaut>
V. Frist zur Abgabe: <Datum, 1-2 Wochen>
VI. Anwaltskostenerstattung: <EUR (Gegenstandswert / Geschäftsgebühr)>
Hinweis: Bei modifizierter Annahme bitte Modifikation begründen.
Bei Nichtannahme: einstweilige Verfügung / Klage.
Risks / typical mistakes
- Cease-and-desist declaration demanded too broadly — breach of proportionality, risk of counterclaim.
- Well-known mark without substantiation of its reputation — § 14(2) No. 3 requires this.
- Double identity asserted for similar goods — No. 1 requires strict identity.
- Deadline too short (< 1 week) → no default, no claim for reimbursement of costs.
- Unjustified warning of infringement of a protected right — if the mark is not strong enough, own liability.
- Statute of limitations not examined — § 20 MarkenG in conjunction with §§ 195, 199 BGB.
- Obligation to use under § 25 not fulfilled — mark ripe for cancellation, warning letter worthless.