1T a t b e s t a n d:

2The plaintiff is on as part of a merger by new from the German Sports Association and National Olympic Committee for Germany 20.05.2006 been established.

3Under § 2 Abs. 2 its statute the responsibility of the applicant all the responsibilities, Rights and responsibilities of National Olympic Committees, as Olympic him by the International Committee (IOC) and the Olympic Charter are transferred. In particular, it has exclusive, To determine the participation of the Federal Republic of Germany to ensure the Olympic Games as well as the cities in Germany, are allowed to bid for the hosting of the Olympic Games.

4The defendant is a company, which specializes in the sale of hot tubs and accessories.

5At the 10.09.2010, kurz vor den Peeling Winter Olympian in Vancouver 2010, which the plaintiff became aware, that the defendant applied a hot tub with the product name "Olympia 2010" on the Internet. In the product description, the defendant used the slogan "Looking forward to Vancouver 2010 in our "Canadian" Jacuzzi with built in shower and massage bed " (Exhibit K 1).

6The plaintiff urged the defendants anwaltlichem letter dated 11.12.2009 from and they asked for an injunction and reimbursement (Exhibit K 2). Die Kosten hierfür zahlte der Kläger nach einem Gegenstandswert von € 50.000,- at a 1,3 Annual fee of € 1.641,96 at the law firm of his present counsel, who had taken over the mandate (Exhibit K 8).

7The defendant issued a modified cease and desist (Exhibit K 3), but refused the cost of warning to take, because it keeps the OlympSchG unconstitutional (Exhibit K 4).

8The applicant claims,

9order the defendant, to the plaintiff € 1.641,96 Gross non-judicial legal costs plus interest in the amount of 5% above the base rate since pendens (21.02.2012) to pay.

10The defendant claims,

11dismiss the action.

12It challenges the local and material jurisdiction of the chamber. § 140 Trademark Act does not apply, because the plaintiff only to support the OlympSchG and trademark issues are not streitgegenständlich. That was as OlympSchG Measures Act in relation to Article. 19 GG unconstitutional, the defendant can contrast for their advertising on Art. 5 GG appointed. Next, the defendant believes, the plaintiff was not actively legitimized, because he is not the owner of the rights and OlympSchG was also not been authorized by the IOC is, its rights to make the process as state steward claims. This follows in particular from the K by the plaintiff as an investment 7 submitted to the authority of the IOC from 21.08.2008, because these brands to be, but not to the rights under § 2 OlympSchG extends. It should also be the subject of the warning value of € 50.000,- excessive and documenting the exclusive interest of the plaintiff in the efficient marketing. For a simple warning letter rather was a dispute of € 5.001,- appropriate.

13For further details of the property,- and dispute, reference is made to the memoranda with attachments reference.

14E n t s c h e i d u n g s g r ü n d e:

15The action may be justified and.

16I.

17The action may be. In particular, the District Court of Dusseldorf matter and local jurisdiction.

18The responsibility follows from § § 9 Abs. 1, Abs. 2 OlympSchG i.V. with § 1 Regulation on the aggregation of disputes after the Olympics Protection Act of 13.07.2004 and § § 12 , 17 Abs. 1 ZPO. The defendant is based in Wuppertal, So at the Higher Regional Court of Dusseldorf.

19II.

20The action is also justified. The plaintiff is not entitled to reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the pre-trial warning the defendant costs according to the principles of a management contract (§§ 670, 683, 677 BGB).

21It was always in the interests of the defendant, that the plaintiff has given her the opportunity pretrial warning, avert the legal assertion of claims by issuing a declaration of punitive.

22The warning was made to the defendant law, because the plaintiff with regard to the designation used by the defendant was to Olympic The claim for injunctive, §§ 2, 3 Section 2 No.. 1, 5 Abs. 1 OlympSchG.

231.

24The process is not in the manner of. 100 Abs. 1 GG suspend. The court is not convinced, that the relevant norms of constitutional law violated OlympSchG.

25a)

26The defendant seen in the provisions of OlympSchG unfairly in violation of the species in. 19 Abs. 1 S.1 GG prohibition laid the individual law. The OlympSchG, which is accompanied by a privilege by assigning intangible property to the IOC and the NOC, applies to a variety of cases and therefore not already fulfilled the requirements of a qualitatively. 19 Abs. 1 S. 1 impermissible Law. For it is generally and not just for the individual case.

27That the IOC and the NOC in § 2 OlympSchG be identified by name, does not change this assessment, an advantage because of these two entities and is not a limitation of their rights. Just in case, that a law the fundamental rights of particular individualized addressees – for the individual case – restricts, is kind. 19 Abs. 1 S. 1 GG's first mandatory and no room for a good cause, so that an infringement involves the annulment of the law according to.

28In the case of preferential treatment but is kind. 19 Abs. 1 S. 1 GG nur insofern relevant, as this is a concrete expression of the general principle of equality by type. 3 Abs. 1 For GG leaves (vgl. with further references Christoph Rieken, The protection of Olympic symbols: Rights to the Olympic rings and Olympic titles in Germany, S. 136ff.).

29b)

30Even with regard to the general principle of equality, Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG, but is not a violation of constitutional law. The development by the OlympSchG unequal treatment of the IOC and the NOC over others is justified. By adopting the OlympSchG were presented at the bid for the Olympic Games 2012 created the legal Rahmenbedigungen for, that - in view of the requirements for an award by the IOC - Olympic Games can still be awarded in principle to Germany. To a generally positive assessment of the alignment of Olympic Games by the Federal Republic of Germany, the Court no doubt, although commercial interests and problems with illicit drug use in connection with the event of major sporting events always play a role.

31The factual justification persists due to the unchanged provisions of the IOC for the legal protection of the Olympic emblem and the Olympic designations as conditions for granting of Olympic and. He's not account for about, campaigns because the application for the Olympic Games in Leipzig and Munich are closed.

32c)

33An interference with the fundamental rights of the defendant from nature. 14 Abs. 1 S. 1, 12 Abs. 1, Art. 19 Abs. 3 GG exists. This is relatively the same reasons, make up the difference in treatment is objectively justified by the OlympSchG recipients to any other person.

34As far as their actions from the defendant's fundamental right to freedom of Art. 5 Abs. 1 S. 1 GG would like to see justified, is not demonstrated sufficiently substantiated, extent to which the advertising of the defendant should be covered by the freedom of expression, considering, dass Advertising, the increase in sales is, not as expression, but is seen as part of the professional freedom (BVerfG, NJW 1976, 559).

352.

36The plaintiff is next to the International Olympic Committee enjoys the exclusive right to the use and exploitation of the Olympic emblem and the Olympic designations, § 2 OlympSchG. Because the plaintiff is the successor to the National Olympic Committee for Germany. In the allocation of usage- and recycling power to the IOC and the NOC by the OlympSchG is the allocation of intangible property, not - as the defendant claims - to the granting of a highly personal public law powers (vgl. Christoph Rieken, a.a.O. S. 137). The uses- and recycling power to the Olympic emblem and the Olympic designations is therefore – as well as other intellectual property rights and licenses – passed upon entry to the accepting applicants (vgl. Schmitt / Hörtnagl / Stratz, Transformation Act, 3. Edition 2001, § 20 §. 67f.).

373.

38The defendant was an injunction under § § 3 Section 2 No.. 1 and 2, 5 Abs. 1 OlympSchG aside.

39After that it is prohibited to third parties, im geschäftlichen Verkehr ohne Zustimmung der Klägerin oder des IOC eine olympische Bezeichnung zur Kennzeichnung oder zur Werbung von Waren zu verwenden, if thereby the likelihood of confusion. This also, that the name of the Olympic Games or the Olympic movement is likelihood of association or if the reputation of the Olympic Games and the Olympic Movement is without due cause take unfair manner or impaired.

40The defendant in a hot tub with the name "2010 Olympics" and advertised on the Internet. It has thus not only used without the consent of the rights holder an Olympic title for the identification and application of goods in trade, but also a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of § 3 Abs. 2 No.. 1 and 2 OlympSchG justified

41Because the defendant has the name "Olympic" made in an overall context, in which the relevant public assume, that the defendant or with the Olympic Movement. the plaintiffs as owners of Germany a connection, was received about as sponsor, from which it is entitled, the term “Olympics” use. This follows from, that the applicant is not just the word "Olympics" is used, it has made in its text display a specific reference to the time near Winter Games in Vancouver, in which it "the slogan anticipation of Vancouver 2010 in our "Canadian" Jacuzzi with built in shower and massage bed "used. This is sufficient, the concrete form of the use of the name with the Olympic Games and the Olympic Movement mentally into communication.

42Moreover, the defendant exploited the reputation of the Olympic Games and the Olympic Movement without due cause takes unfair advantage. Because she has the permission of her chosen form of the product range. advertising intended image transfer on their products (vgl. Image transfer as the impairment of the function of advertising a brand BGH 2011, 1135 – Large inspection for all).

43Justifications are not apparent, in particular is not a necessary descriptive use within the meaning of § 4 No.. 2 OlympSchG vor.

444.

45Der der Abmahnung zugrunde gelegten Gegenstandswert mit € 50.000,- has not been set too high. So far can be an orientation to the dispute in valuation of comparable mark matters. Alone significantly, therefore, the interest of the plaintiff objected to the omission of action in the warning. The claimant has been contradicted, annually between 4 and 6 Millionen Euro Lizenzgebühren durch die Lizenzierung der olympischen Symbole und Bezeichnungen einzunehmen. Against this backdrop is an unlicensed use of the Olympic names by companies generally suitable, the plaintiff could cause a significant damage. His marketing opportunities can be significantly affected by any unauthorized use. Der Gegenstandswert von € 50.000 Against this background and reasonable and reflects the fact alleged by the defendant, time only short lifetime due account.

465.

47The interest claim follows from § § 288 Abs. 1 S. 2, 291 BGB.

48III.

49In addition to the procedural decisions follow from § § 91 Abs. 1 S. 1, 709 ZPO.

50Dispute: € 1642,-