“For cosmetics is happy with statements as dermatologically recommended” or recommended by dermatologists “advertised. When using such claims caution is advised, but since these courts often as anti-competitive, because misleading are judged. In a recent decision of the Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Dusseldorf. “” In the case was recruited for a hair dye among other things with the statements: recommended by independent Dermatologists ‘and recommended by dermatologists’. The OLG Dusseldorf held regardless of the nature, the content and number of this dermatological opinion misleading these claims.
That statement was so understanding that dermatologists generally recommend the use of the advertised product. A significant portion of consumers in particular will this understand then, that in the opinion of any dermatologist the product no damage more evokes on skin and hair, the product so par excellence, dermatologically recommended in every respect. Since it is in cosmetics to such products were not from medical, but would apply for aesthetic reasons, evokes the impression that a so advertised cosmetics from medical point of view without risks can be applied and caused no damage to the advertising with a doctor’s recommendation. This impression of a schadigungs – and totally risk-free application is not applicable however due to the damage of the hair associated with the dye and therefore misleading. The decision of the OLG Dusseldorf shows that cosmetic products is offered in care when they should be advertised with medical recommendations. It shows that such claims as the advertising of cosmetics as a whole increasingly in the cross hairs of competition law are available.Other non-binding and free information around the cosmetic law, see