ip/it & media - reed smith

IP/IT & MEDIA

IN THIS ISSUE:New case law by the European Court of Justice regarding reputation in 1

the Community and exhaustion of trademark rights

European Court of Justice: Prohibition of linking raffles with product purchase 2 in German Act Against Unfair Competition violates European Community law

Federal Court of Justice again decides on the permissibility of advertisement 2 with price reduction

Federal Court of Justice: GEMA not competent to grant licenses for use of music 3 in advertising

‘Appropriate Remuneration’ for translators under German copyright law 3 - Federal Court of Justice decides in favor of translators

Federal Court of Justice: Transcripts of a radio contribution may be kept 4 available online even if they expressly state the names of convicted persons

Patent litigation: Procedural changes in Munich 5

News from the Practice Groups 6

NEWSLETTER – JANUARY 2010

IP/IT & MEDIa - JaNUaRY 2010 1

NEw caSE law bY THE EURoPEaN coURT of JUSTIcE REgaRDINg REPUTaTIoN IN THE coMMUNITY aND ExHaUSTIoN of TRaDEMaRk RIgHTSDR. alExaNDER R. klETT

In a decision of October 6, 2009 (file no. C-301/07), the European Court

of Justice had to decide on the interpretation of Article 9 (1) c of the

Community Trademark Regulation. This provision extends the scope

of protection of Community trademarks having a reputation in the

Community. The owner of such a Community trademark with reputation

can prevent the use of identical or similar marks even for goods or

services that are not similar to those for which the Community trademark

is registered, if such use takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the

distinctive character or the repute of the Community trademark.

The case to be decided by the European Court of Justice was a reference

from the Austrian Supreme Court in litigation between Pago and Tirol

Milch. Pago owns the following figurative Community trademark,

protected, among others, for fruit drinks and fruit juices:

Tirol Milch marketed a drink, among others in bottles, some of which are

similar to the one shown in the mark by Pago.

The Pago mark has a reputation only in Austria. The Austrian Supreme

Court therefore asked the European Court of Justice whether a

Community trademark that has a reputation only in Austria qualifies as a

Community trademark with a reputation in the Community for purposes of

Article 9 (1) c of the Community trademark regulation.

The European Court of Justice answered in the affirmative. In earlier case

law the court had decided that for purposes of the EU Trademark Directive

it was sufficient for a domestic Benelux trademark to have a reputation

in a substantial part of the Benelux territory—which may be a part of

one of the Benelux countries only. In the recent case the court took the

view that in order for a Community trademark to have a reputation in the

Community, it is sufficient if it is known by a significant part of the public in

a substantial part of the territory of the European Community, and that the

territory of Austria may be considered to constitute a substantial part of

the territory of the Community for these purposes.

This is good news for owners of Community trademarks making heavy

use of their marks in one or few member states only, and who still want to

benefit from the extended scope of protection afforded by Article 9 (1) c in

all 27 member states of the Community.

In another recent decision dated October 15, 2009 (file no. C-324/08),

the European Court of Justice had to decide on a referral by the Dutch

Supreme Court concerning the interpretation of Article 7 (1) of EU

Trademark Directive 89/104/EEC. In the case pending in the Netherlands,

Diesel sued Makro and other parties for selling certain products in the

Netherlands carrying the Diesel mark. Diesel had previously granted a

license for certain Diesel products for Spain, Portugal, and Andorra. The

licensee had granted an exclusive sublicense with respect to certain

goods, whereupon the sublicensee had granted a further license to another

entity concerning the manufacture of footwear, bags and belts with the

Diesel mark. The sale of these goods was not covered by any express

consent or agreement either by Diesel or its licensee. Some of these goods

were ultimately sold in the Netherlands by Makro. Makro tried to defend

itself by claiming that with respect to these goods, the trademark rights

of Diesel had been exhausted, which is why Diesel could not enjoin Makro

from selling the goods within the European Economic Area.

In this context, the Dutch Court asked the European Court of Justice

about the criteria to be applied in determining whether a sale of goods not

covered by the express consent of the trademark owner may nevertheless

have taken place with the implied consent of the owner under Article 7 (1)

of the EU Trademark Directive. The ECJ took the view that a consent of the

trademark owner with respect to marketing goods bearing the mark within

the European Economic Area by a third party may be implied if this can

be inferred from facts and circumstances prior to, simultaneous with, or

subsequent to the placing of the goods on the market within the EEA that,

as determined by the national court, would clearly show that the trademark

owner has renounced his exclusive rights.

While it is still uncertain how the case will ultimately be decided by the

Dutch Supreme Court, this case indicates the danger to trademark owners

stemming from complex multi-level distribution arrangements if the scope of

the rights of each licensee/distributor is not sufficiently specified and spelled

out in the agreement. The lesson to be learned from this case for trademark

owners, therefore, is to make absolutely sure in their license agreements

what the exact scope of rights granted to the licensee, and the possible

scope of sublicenses to be granted by the licensee, is. A lack of diligence

in this respect may ultimately lead to a de facto partial loss of enforcement

rights to the trademark owner contrary to his original intention.


EURoPEaN coURT of JUSTIcE: PRoHIbITIoN of lINkINg RafflES wITH PRoDUcT PURcHaSE IN gERMaN acT agaINST UNfaIR coMPETITIoN vIolaTES EURoPEaN coMMUNITY lawDR. alExaNDER R. klETT / kaTHaRINa a. wEIMER

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided on January 14, 2010 (file

no. C-304/08) that Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair commercial

practices makes domestic legislation impossible according to which

business practices linking participation of consumers in a raffle to

the purchase of goods or the use of services are declared to be unfair

competition.

This decision resulted from a reference by the German Federal Court of

Justice. The German Court will have to decide on the following matter:

The supermarket chain Plus gave its customers “points” when purchasing

goods. The number of points depended on the value of the goods

purchased. From a certain number of points a customer could participate

for free in drawings of the German state-run lottery on two different

days. A German consumer protection association took action against this

because it took the view that this practice violated the provision in Sec.

4 no. 6 of the German Act Against Unfair Competition. According to this

provision, it is illegal to link participation of consumers in a raffle to the

purchase of goods or the use of services, unless the raffle by its nature is

connected to the product or service.

This provision, according to the ECJ, violates European Community

law. The rules regarding business practices vis-à-vis consumers were

completely harmonized by Directive 2005/29/EC. Under Art. 4 of the

Directive, the member states may not limit the free movement of services

and the free movement of goods for reasons relating to the areas

harmonized by the Directive. This means that member states may not

provide stricter rules regarding the relationship between companies and

consumers than does the Directive. The Directive, however, contains a

final and complete list of all practices which under any circumstances

are to be regarded as unfair without requiring an individual analysis (Art.

5 of the Directive in connection with Annex I). The prohibition on linking

participation in the raffle to the purchase of goods or the use of services

under Sec. 4 no. 6 German Act Against Unfair Competition is not mentioned

in the Directive.

Consequently, according to the ECJ, the Directive is violated by this

provision. According to the court, this analysis does not change just

because Sec. 4 no. 6 German Act Against Unfair Competition provides for

an exception for raffles which are inevitably linked to goods or services

because this wording cannot replace the necessary analysis in the

individual case as it constitutes a limited predefined exception.

This decision by the ECJ is a blow to German unfair competition law as

applied for decades. The prohibition of linking raffles to purchases is one

of the pillars of German unfair competition law and will now have to be

considered to go against European Community law. At the very least, Sec.

4 no. 6 German Act Against Unfair Competition will in the future have to

be interpreted in such a way that an individual analysis of whether unfair

competition can be found will have to be undertaken contrary to the

wording of the provision. The German Federal Court of Justice will have

to take this into account in deciding the matter. Even if the decision by

the ECJ will offer new possibilities to businesses to promote sales with

the help of raffles or draws because this linking will now be possible, the

terms and conditions of such raffles will still be scrutinized under general

provisions of unfair competition law. The German Federal Court of Justice

will now have the opportunity to define the criteria for a permitted linking.

fEDERal coURT of JUSTIcE agaIN DEcIDES oN THE PERMISSIbIlITY of aDvERTISEMENT wITH PRIcE REDUcTIoNkaTHaRINa a. wEIMER

In its judgment dating from December 10, 2009 (file no. I ZR 195/07 –

the complete judgment is not available yet), the I. Civil Court of the

German Federal Court of Justice, inter alia responsible for actions in

unfair competition, decided that advertisement with a price deduction of

19 percent constitutes unfair competition if it is not clear and unequivocal

from the advertisement itself that such price deduction will only be granted

on goods in stock in the shop.

Plaintiff and defendant are competitors in the area of trade with photo and

video cameras and respective accessories. In its brochure the defendant

advertised: “Only today, January 3, photo and video cameras without

19 percent VAT*” (“Nur heute 3. Januar Foto- und Videokameras ohne 19%

Mehrwertsteuer*”). The footnote with asterisk contained the following:

“Save a full 19 percent on the retail price” (“Sparen Sie volle 19% auf den

Verkaufspreis”). Two employees of the plaintiff visited the defendant’s

premises January 3 and received a 19 percent discount on the retail price

upon purchase of a camera. When asked whether this camera could also

be ordered, a sales representative of the defendant confirmed this but

informed the two employees that the price deduction will only be granted

on cameras in stock in the shop January 3.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for injunctive relief, determination of

obligation to pay damages, and information, and prevailed on all counts in

the lower instances. The Federal Court of Justice is of the same opinion

and dismissed the defendant’s appeal. The advertised price deduction

constitutes a sales promotion and, as such, must clearly and unequivocally

identify the conditions for its applicability already in the advertisement. The

defendant’s advertisement does not satisfy these criteria. The consumer

must be able to inform himself in advance on the conditions that the


advertising company has set forth for claiming the price deduction in

order to be able to make an informed purchase decision. The fact that

an announced price deduction cannot be granted on goods that can be

ordered but are not (any longer) available in the shop forms part of such

decisive criteria. Such a restriction must be announced in the relevant

advertisement already in order to satisfy the transparency requirements

stipulated by the law.

The decision of the Federal Court of Justice clearly shows that companies

need to continue to apply due consideration to the design and creation of

advertising, and need to take into account that seemingly minor details

need to be mentioned to satisfy the obligation of transparency.

fEDERal coURT of JUSTIcE: gEMa NoT coMPETENT To gRaNT lIcENSES foR USE of MUSIc IN aDvERTISINgDR. alExaNDER R. klETT / kaTHaRINa a. wEIMER

The German Federal Court of Justice decided in a decision of June 10,

2009 (file no. I ZR 226/06, published with full opinion only November 30,

2009), that the German collecting society for musical rights, GEMA, is

currently not competent to license rights of its members regarding the use

of musical works in advertising.

In the case to be decided, an advertising agency wanted to use

commercials with background music for its own marketing purposes on

its Internet website. GEMA had asked for payment of license fees for this

use. The advertising agency refused to make payment and brought a

declaratory action claiming that GEMA did not have the right to request

information and/or payment of royalties from the advertising agency for the

use of musical works as part of commercials made for the customers, nor

for the use of the commercials for marketing purposes on the website of

the advertising agency. The Federal Court of Justice had to decide whether

such use for marketing purposes is covered by the exploitation rights

granted to GEMA and therefore subject to royalty payments to GEMA.

The Federal Court of Justice took the view that this is not the case, and

argued that the current version of the license agreement by which the

right-holders grant certain rights of use and exploitation to GEMA does

not include rights of the GEMA members concerning the use of their music

for advertising purposes. With the license agreements, the right-holders

grant GEMA various rights for administration that are spelled out in the

license agreement, not including, however, the right to use musical works

for advertising purposes. This right has neither been expressly granted to

GEMA, nor does it have to be regarded as included in the contractual aim

defined by both parties because, according to the Federal Court of Justice,

copyright owners are perfectly able to administer the right of use of their

works for advertising purposes themselves. In the case of use of works for

advertising purposes, the possibility to negotiate license fees individually

is in the best interest of right-holders, according to the court, which is why

subjecting such use to tariffs or distribution models of GEMA would be

contrary to such interest.

This decision came as a surprise both to GEMA and the music industry. It

does not fit with the idea of using GEMA as a “one stop shop” for obtaining

rights to use of music from GEMA members. Advertisers who would

like to use music of GEMA members are currently forced to contact the

right-holders directly, which can lead to practical difficulties and make

clearance of rights significantly more complicated. GEMA intends to get in

touch with its members in order to obtain subsequent approvals for grants

of rights made in the past, and to find a practical solution for the future

by amending the license agreement with its members to include uses in

advertising.

‘aPPRoPRIaTE REMUNERaTIoN’ foR TRaNSlaToRS UNDER gERMaN coPYRIgHT law – gERMaN fEDERal coURT of JUSTIcE DEcIDES IN favoR of TRaNSlaToRSDR. alExaNDER R. klETT

In five parallel matters decided by the German Federal Court of Justice

October 7, 2009 and published by the court recently (case nos. I ZR 38/07,

I ZR 39/07, I ZR 40/07, I ZR 41/07 and I ZR 230/06), the court further

interpreted the provisions on appropriate remuneration for licensors in

German copyright law. Since the German Copyright Act was amended in

2002, authors and creators have a legal right to appropriate and adequate

remuneration under Sec. 32 German Copyright Act. If a license fee agreed

to contractually is not found to be adequate, the author or creator can

request the consent by the licensee to amend the license agreement in

order to increase the agreed-to license fee.

While this provision may seem surprising, the legislative idea behind it

was to grant sufficient protection to authors and creators who may be

in a negotiating position that may not be sufficiently strong to be able to

obtain reasonable and adequate payment for their work. This situation,

in the opinion of the legislator, existed particularly with respect to literary

translators. It is quite fitting in a way, therefore, that the recently decided

cases all dealt with literary translators.

In the leading case among the five decided, a translator had prepared literary

translations of two novels from English into German and been paid the

contractually agreed-to fee of approximately €15 per page. She found this to

be insufficient and requested that the agreement be amended appropriately.

Interestingly, the Federal Court of Justice found that the payment of €15

per page was common in the industry at the time the agreement was

concluded. At the same time, however, the court found that such a payment

was inadequate because it did not reflect the reasonable interest of the

translator to share in all forms of economic exploitation of the translation.


The Federal Court of Justice took the view that in order for license fees of

literary translators to be reasonable, flat fee arrangements will usually not be

sufficient if the rights granted are unlimited in time and scope. In addition,

according to the court, it will be necessary, from a certain number of copies

sold, to have the translator share in the revenue generated. The court

decided that this had to be the case above 5,000 copies of the translated

work sold. The share owed to the translator should then be 8 percent for

hard cover editions and 4 percent for paperback issues (relating to the net

retail price of the book). Additionally, according to the court, the translator

is entitled to 50 percent of the net revenue generated by the publisher by

granting third parties the right to use the translated work (relating to the

value of the translation as part of the grant).

While the Federal Court of Justice took the view that the Court of Appeals

had not finally determined whether the facts in this particular case

warranted a deviation from the general framework set by the Federal Court

of Justice, and the case has thus been remanded, the general framework

set by the Federal Court of Justice will nevertheless now have to be taken

into account in drafting license agreements under German copyright

law in the future. This applies, in particular, to publishers working with

translators. It will not apply to publishers and translators only, however.

The respective provisions in the German Copyright Act are not limited to

them. It can be taken from this recent case law by the German Federal

Court of Justice that in all cases in which license agreements relate to

long-term exploitation of works, the license fees should be structured in

such a way that a proportionate share in the revenues generated by the

author or creator is ensured. While the percentage amount set by the

Federal Court of Justice in the recent case law will not apply uniformly

to all forms of exploitation of all kinds of works, the general structure

will have to be reflected. It is therefore not advisable to continue to use

template license agreements without any proportionate share in revenue

for the licensor (author/creator) if they are to cover long-term exploitations

of certain works.

fEDERal coURT of JUSTIcE: TRaNScRIPTS of a RaDIo coNTRIbUTIoN MaY bE kEPT avaIlablE oNlINE EvEN If THEY ExPRESSlY STaTE THE NaMES of coNvIcTED PERSoNSkaTHaRINa a. wEIMER

On December 14, 2009, the German Federal Court of Justice decided (file

nos. VI ZR 227/08 and VI ZR 228/08 – the complete judgments are not

available yet) that the defendant Deutschlandradio (a German radio station)

is permitted to make non-current transcripts of broadcast contributions

that explicitly identify the names of the convicted murderers of the famous

German actor Walter Sedlmayr available in its online archive. The plaintiffs

cannot demand from the defendant Deutschlandradio to refrain from

maintaining the respective transcripts on the part of its homepage

www.dradio.de that is dedicated to archived news.

In 1993, the plaintiffs received a life sentence for murder of the actor

Walter Sedlmayr. They were released on parole in summer 2007 and

January 2008 respectively. In the category “Kalenderblatt” (calendar

sheet) of its online presence, the defendant had kept a transcript of a

contribution with the title “Walter Sedlmayr murdered 10 years ago”

(“Vor 10 Jahren Walter Sedlmayr ermordet”), dating from July 14, 2000

until at least sometime into the year 2007. This contribution truthfully

discloses the full names of the plaintiffs as convicted in the murder case

of Walter Sedlmayr.

The plaintiffs succeeded with their demands before the lower courts.

However, upon appeal by the defendant, the VI. Civil Court of the Federal

Court of Justice, responsible for the protection of personal rights, overruled

the decisions of the lower instances and dismissed the claims. In its

decision, the Federal Court weighed the personal rights of the plaintiffs

and their interest in social reintegration against the public’s interest in

information, and the freedom of opinion and of the press of the defendant.

The Federal Court decided that making the contribution containing the

plaintiffs’ full names available does indeed constitute an intrusion into

the plaintiffs’ personal rights. However, in this case the intrusion is not

unlawful because the plaintiffs’ interests, including their interest in a

successful reintegration after release on parole, has to give way to the

public’s interest in obtaining information, served by the defendant, as well

as the defendant’s freedom of opinion. According to the Federal Court,

the objected contribution is not capable of pillorying the plaintiffs or

showcasing them in a fashion that would (again) stigmatize the plaintiffs

as convicted criminals. In evaluating the facts, the Federal Court of Justice

took into consideration that the contribution contained matter-of-factly

worded and true statements regarding a capital crime against a famous

person that had caused considerable excitement in the public. The fact

that the plaintiffs had continued to seek a repeal of their conviction until far

after the year 2000 was also of importance for the legitimacy of making

the contribution available in 2000. This evaluation did not change after the

plaintiffs’ release on parole because the contribution has a limited impact

on the public because of its rather hidden location on the defendant’s

homepage, and because the public’s interest lies not only in current affairs

but also in the possibility to research events that occurred in the past. The

Federal Court explicitly mentioned the risk that the desired prohibition may

result in a deterring effect on the use of the freedom of opinion and of the

press, thereby restricting the free information and communication process:

the defendant might exclude such facts that may cause the contribution

to become illegal later on from the contribution, or it might refrain from

archiving its contributions entirely.

The decision by the Federal Court of Justice clearly shows that the public’s

interest in information in past events, and the freedom of opinion and

freedom of press of media companies, takes up a high rank and may

indeed outweigh the personal rights and interests in reintegration of the

individual.

http://www.dradio.de


PaTENT lITIgaTIoN: PRocEDURal cHaNgES IN MUNIcHDR. RIcHaRD ScHlöTTER

In order to increase the attractiveness of Munich as a venue for patent

infringement cases, the Patent Chambers of the Munich District Court

recently launched a number of procedural changes. Among others, the

changes include the introduction of an early first hearing, in which the court

will give the parties a preliminary assessment of the case so that plaintiff and

defendant each receive indications for the main hearing. At the same time, in

the early first hearing, the other deadlines for submitting briefs as well as the

date for the main hearing are agreed. It is the intention of the Munich District

Court that these deadlines should be obligatory; the option of an extension

of a deadline should be exercised restrictively. Furthermore, not previously

agreed-upon additional briefs will be restricted by enforcing civil procedural

delay rules or, if necessary, by postponing the main hearing.

The introduced procedural changes should significantly expedite patent

litigation cases before the Munich District Court. The court expects a total

time frame of about six to ten months, starting from filing of the lawsuit.

The presented procedural changes appear promising. Particularly welcome is

the approach of the district court to use the early first hearing as a possibility

for determining the venue for the parties, so that the factually relevant

questions from the point of view of the court can be prepared adequately for

the main hearing. This prevents being confronted with negative surprises

during the main hearing. In conjunction with the considered streamlining of

the proceeding by the district court, this should make Munich as a venue for

patent infringement proceedings clearly more attractive.


NEwS fRoM THE PRacTIcE gRoUPS

UPcoMINg SEMINaRS

On January 27/28, 2010, Dr. alexander R. klett will be holding a seminar

on “Legally Compliant Marketing”(Rechtssicheres Marketing) at Schloss

Montabaur at the Akademie Deutscher Genossenschaften.

Dr. Richard Schlötter will be hosting the Management Circle Seminar

“IP Rights in Insolvency Situations” (Gewerbliche Schutzrechte in der

Insolvenz) April 28 in Frankfurt, May 18 in Cologne, and June 24 in Munich.

Dr. Schlötter, Dr. alexander R. klett, and three other authorities will be

lecturing on how insolvency proceedings are executed in Germany, how

IP rights are dealt with in insolvency situations, to what extent license

agreements can be transferred, how patents are valuated, and how IP

rights can be insured.

If you would like more information, please contact Anja Oberschmidt

([email protected]).

REcENT PRESENTaTIoNS & SEMINaRS

On October 26, 2009, Dr. Richard Schlötter, together with four

other speakers, held the client seminar “IP Rights in Insolvency Situations”

(Gewerbliche Schutzrechte in der Insolvenz) at the Reed Smith

Munich office.

PUblIcaTIoNS

Dr. alexander R. klett published an article in the INTA Bulletin on the

subject, “When is the Use of ® Misleading? German Federal Supreme

Court Sheds New Light” (INTA Bulletin Nov. 15, 2009, Vol. 64, No. 21, p. 9).

Dr. alexander R. klett and frederike flechsig published an article in

the German law review GRUR International entitled, “Neighboring rights in

Europe within the limits of the internal market – on the term of protection

of the rights of record companies in light of Directive 2006/116/EC”

(Europäischer Leistungsschutz in den Grenzen des Binnenmarktes - zur

Schutzdauer der Rechte des Tonträgerherstellers im Lichte der Richtlinie

2006/116/EG, GRUR Int. 11/2009, p. 895).

katharina a. weimer co-authored the article “Upcoming Changes to the

German Federal Data Protection Act,” published in the International Privacy

Guide by West (Thomson Reuters) in November 2009.

katharina a. weimer authored the article “The German Federal Data

Protection Act and its recent changes,” published by BNA International in

the World Data Protection Report in September 2009, and in the Privacy

and Security Law Report in October 2009.

ExclUSIvE IN-HoUSE SEMINaRS

We would be delighted to offer your company customized in-house

seminars and presentations on current issues and recent legal

developments. Please contact us.

PaTENT lITIgaTIoN: cURRENT lEgal DEvEloPMENTS foR PHaRMacEUTIcal aND lIfE ScIENcES coMPaNIES

On January 28, 2010, Dr. Richard Schlötter will be holding an

evening seminar on developments in patent litigation for the Life

Sciences industry (Patent Litigation: Aktuelle Entwicklungen im

Bereich Pharma/Life Sciences) at the Reed Smith Munich office.

If you are interested in attending this workshop or would like

more information, please contact Anja Oberschmidt

([email protected]).

coNgRaTUlaTIoNS:

Dr. Alexander R. Klett was elected Co-Chair for the 2010-2011

term of the INTA Bulletin Committee - Policy & Practice Features

Subcommittee of the International Trademark Association.


coNTRIbUToRS To THIS ISSUE

Dr. alexander R. klett, ll.M.

Partner

Intellectual Property

[email protected]

T: +49 (0)89 20304 145

Dr. Richard Schlötter

Partner

Intellectual Property

[email protected]

T: +49 (0)89 20304 172

katharina a. weimer, ll.M.

Associate

Advertising, Technology & Media

[email protected]

T: +49 (0)89 20304 160

Provider of the Newsletter according to Sec. 5 German Act for Telecommunications Media Services (Telemediengesetz) and to Sec. 55 para 1 Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag):

Reed Smith LLP - Fünf Höfe - Theatinerstrasse 8 80333 München

T: +49 (0)89 20304 10 F: +49 (0)89 20304 199

www.reedsmith.com

Responsible editors according to Sec. 55 para 2 Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag):

Dr. Alexander R. Klett.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this Newsletter was compiled by Reed Smith LLP as a summary of the subject matter covered and is intended to be a general guide only and not to be comprehensive, nor to provide legal advice. All information provided in the newsletters and publications is thoroughly reviewed by Reed Smith LLP. However, Reed Smith LLP takes no responsibility for the correctness, completeness and up-to-dateness of the information.

The complete Impressum (Legal Notices) can be viewed at http://www.reedsmith.com/telemediengesetz/telemediengesetz_english.cfm.

© Copyright 2010 Reed Smith.

ip/it & media - reed smith

Documents