DR. SARAFI lawyers enforce competition law for an online retailer

Hamburg, April 26, 2025 — Our client, a specialized online retailer of fragrances, in particular pheromone perfumes, was confronted with a preliminary restraining order by a competitor. He called for the omission of supposedly anti-competitive conduct. While individual violations could not be denied and the preliminary injunction was partly successful, we succeeded in fending off a central claim in favour of our client. In addition, we ourselves discovered violations on the competitor's website that represented misleading advertising.

Background to the proceedings

Our analysis revealed that the applicant had targeted competitors, systematically checked their websites and then issued warnings.

Misleading advertising with “Known from...”

The competitor advertised on its website with the logos of renowned fashion and lifestyle magazines such as VOGUE, Cosmopolitan, InStyle and Brigitte. It was suggested that the company's products were mentioned or tested in these magazines. A banner with the license plates of these companies ran from right to left across the competitor's website.

However:

• There was no link to corresponding articles.
• The magazines had not mentioned or promoted the products.
• The logos were used without permission or knowledge of the relevant media.

Through this approach, the competitor tried to benefit from the good reputation of the magazines and give the impression that its products were recognized by renowned media. In fact, this misled consumers into believing that there was objective reporting or recommendation.

Legal classification

Advertising with “Known from...” or with the license plates of the magazines requires actual reporting by the mentioned medium. This must be made transparent to consumers — for example by providing a reference or a direct link to the relevant article. Otherwise, there is misleading, which is prohibited under Section 5a (1) UWG.

The Higher Regional Court of Hamburg also ruled in a comparable case: “It is misleading by withholding essential information, as the consumer is given the impression that the product is the subject of editorial reporting without such evidence being verifiable.”

The expectations of the target audience are particularly relevant here: Consumers assume that “known from...” advertising refers to neutral or positive reporting, but not to a paid ad or even non-existent coverage.

The success of our legal action

After we had uncovered the competition violations committed by the competitor, we asked them to refrain from doing so out of court. Since no declaration of injunctive relief was submitted within the set deadline, we applied for a preliminary injunction before the Hamburg Regional Court — with success.

The court confirmed:

1. The illegal use of the magazine logos is misleading.
2. The lack of reference information is a key feature of consumer deception.
3. The competitor has been required to refrain from doing so and must remove the illegal advertising from their website.

Practical relevance and recommendations for companies

With its decision, the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg has set clear guidelines for companies that advertise with “Known from...”:

• Any reference to media reports must be supported by a reference.
• Hyperlinks or references are required to ensure transparency.
• Negative reporting or pure advertisements must not be declared as “known from...”.

conclusion

This case shows how important it is to consistently investigate competition infringements — not only on your own website, but also on competitors' websites. Our client was able to partially defend himself against a preliminary injunction and take action against his competitor himself.

For inquiries:
DR. SARAFI Rechtsanwälte
info@sarafi.de