Warning Waldorf of Frommer on behalf of Warner Bros. “Entertainment GmbH for the cinematographic ‘ Batman: the Dark Knight rises’ have a unpleasant warning of the watchdog firm Waldorf of Frommer for the film work of Batman: the Dark Knight rises” on behalf of Warner Bros. Get Entertainment GmbH? Then, when the first shock is gone, you should keep a cool head. It the damage can be quite in any particular case completely or at least partially eliminate or significantly reduce. Actress and filmmaker understood the implications. It is important that you observe the following rules for a successful representation: you do not contact me the watchdog Office on signing you nothing and you don’t pay anything, before you speak with a qualified attorney for copyright have note carefully the usually very short selected first and access to the telephone or send us an email you should help from a qualified attorney for copyright and advise at least let, because in this case a rather special area of law concerned, where usually special knowledge and above all the current case law must be known. Inaction, an interlocutory proceedings in court, from which not even ascertain threatens you.

A such interlocutory proceedings would then be connected to other process costs 2000.00. But also the unconditional obedience, say pay and sign the present Declaration of discontinuance is not particularly useful. In this case, you would have recognized the claim and would be dunned in the next warning from in front with c.a. 5,000.00. Get so help. Georg Schafer Attorney

Constitutionality of order money proceedings delayed disclosure of annual accounts from the reporting year 2006 is the disclosure of annual accounts officio controlled and conducted the proceedings of order money, should the annual accounting documents not later than 12 months after the balance sheet date has been filed be. While fixing an order fee must be threatened first the company, so still the possibility to catch up on the disclosure without order money methods, however already costs incurred for writing of threat of. If of this threat is not complied within a period of 6 weeks or the omission not by means of an objection is justified, a fine shall be determined by at least 2,500.00 and a maximum 25,000.00. The fee of this order does not exempt from the disclosure requirement, and it can be set repeatedly. The Federal Office of Justice has that their commitment to the submission of annual accounts documents against a limited company, is not fully complied with the operator of the electronic Federal Gazette also already extended deadlines, a fine in the amount of 2,500.00 set.

Against this setting, the GmbH including raised constitutional complaint on the grounds that the imposition of order money, as well as the amount of hurt her in their constitutional rights. Meet the GmbH no or only slight fault and the fine to exceed the annual profit many times over. Is the Federal Constitutional Court in its decision (decision of 01.02.2011) however clear, that there are no fundamental constitutional concerns against the disclosure and its sanctioning. Of significant general interest purpose of disclosure justify possible interference in the exercise of freedom of occupation. Also in the amount of the fine money, the court sees no constitutional concerns and is it as proportionate. Contact: RTS control advisory firm KG Decker RT 37 70372 Stuttgart phone: 0711/9554-0 fax: 0711/9554-1000

“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

modified cease and desist (MOD.UE) who received a warning for violation of copyright law in the Internet, goes into the Internet often only a modified Declaration of discontinuance (MOD.To dispose of UE). In many forums, it is important to read that the firms admonition from not to pursue the matters. This behavior is with caution. The number of cases in which the (alleged) claims are pursued, rises steadily. This year money payments on behalf of their clients have been applied for in particular by the law firms of Salado & Schenk, Waldorf of Frommer, Fareds, U + C, .rka and Zimmermann Decker.

A notice of alleged copyright infringement was regularly preceded by these orders. This shows even more clearly that to always back court enforced the claims asserted in the cease and desist letters. What is a judicial order for payment? The order for payment procedure (officially legal Dunning proceedings) is a court procedure, the simplified enforcement of Debt is used. This allows enforcement of a debt without complaint, without judgment. The procedure is performed often fully automated, without that verifies whether the payment actually entitled to the applicant.

This note is also on the order for payment itself. The procedure is so that a quick and cost-saving alternative to the ordinary civil procedure, which is especially suitable for claims, allowing no hassle. The aim of the procedure is first to move a debtor to pay. However, the writ of execution is at the end of the order for payment procedure. This is an enforcement order, with which the creditor can enforce his debt. How should I react to the order for payment? Notes of the Court are located on the back of the payment order. You should first of all read this alone. In case of doubt, whether the claim is actually should be responded as soon as possible: doubts remain, so it can recommend themselves immediately with a lawyer, a lawyer or person authorised with an otherwise to the legal advice center or service to use. First, be aware that remain for the gathering of the opposition just two weeks from the notification of the payment order. If you want to proceed against the order, then they should let not uneventful this period. You should opposition anyway within this period. Only after the timely collection of the opposition, the matter is emitted to the competent court. This will inform you however also separately. If affiliated by the opposite side is brought a lawyer should be contacted in any case. Her Tobias Arnold do you get also a Dunning? Please note the deadline there. We are also under hilfe.de available.