LEGAL PROCEEDINGS OF OUR LAW FIRM

Our law firm has been involved in numerous legal proceedings, some of which are known to the general public or among trade professionals.

Court of Justice of the European Union

CJEU, judgement of 4 June 2015, Case No. C-195/14 – Teekanne vs. vzbv [Federation of German Consumer Organisations] on misleading advertising of flavoured tea “fruit tea, raspberry-vanilla adventure” [judgement]
CJEU, judgement of 10 April 2014, Case No. C-609/12 – Wettbewerbszentrale [Centre for Protection against Unfair Competition] vs. Ehrmann on health claim “as important as the daily glass of milk” [judgement] [question referred by the Federal Court of Justice]
CJEU, judgement of 6 October 2011, Case No. C-382/10 – Self-service retail of bread and bakery products [judgement]
CJEU, judgement of 7 September 2006, Case No. C-489/04 – Marketing of olive oil by the bag-in-the-box method [judgement]

BVerwG, decision of 24.08.2022, 2 3 B 36.21 – German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (represented by us) because of "Ginkgo”

Federal Court of Justice, decision of 22 April 2020, Case No. 1 StR 261/19 – Deliberate marketing of foods with misleading designation [decision]
Federal Court of Justice, judgement of 2 December 2015, Case No. I ZR 45/13 - Teekanne vs. vzbv on flavoured tea “raspberry-vanilla adventure II” [judgement]
Federal Court of Justice, judgement of 12 February 2015, Case No. I ZR 36/11 – Wettbewerbszentrale vs. Ehrmann on health claim “as important as the daily glass of milk” [judgement]
Federal Court of Justice, judgement of 10 December 2015, Case No. I ZR 222/13 – Rotbäckchen vs. vzbv on health claim “fast learner” [judgement]
Federal Court of Justice, judgement of 1 July 2010, Case No. I ZR 19/08 – Carpe Diem vs. Schwabe on a ginkgo-based beverage [judgement]
Federal Court of Justice, judgement of 22 July 2004, Case No. I ZR 288/01 – on yoghurt with melissa and St. John’s wort [judgement]
Federal Court of Justice, judgement of 13 May 2004, Case No. I ZR 261/01 – Gräsler Pharma vs. VSW on honey wine additive [judgement]

Higher Regional Court of Vienna, judgement of 29 April 2016, Case No. 1 R 58/16f – vs. VKI [Association for Consumer Information] on misleading advertising [judgement]
Higher Regional Court of Koblenz, judgement of 21 January 2014, Case No. 9 U 405/13 – Rotbäckchen vs. vzbv on health claim “fast learner” [judgement]
OLG Düsseldorf, judgement of 21 March 2013, Case No. I-20 U 59/12 – vs. vzbv on misleading advertising of flavoured tea [judgement]
Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe, judgement of 14 March 2012, Case No. 6 U 12/11 – Near Water vs. Wettbewerbszentrale on misleading advertising of flavourings [judgement]
Higher Regional Court of Munich, judgement of 6 August 2009, Case No. 6 U 5717/07 – Novel food mangosteen [judgement]
Higher Regional Court of Hamburg, judgement of 12 October 2007, Case No. 5 U 5/07 – “Colouring fruit concentrate” identification of sugar [judgement]

Higher Administrative Court of Lüneburg, judgement 29.09.2021, 13 LB 31/14 - BVL (represented by us) vs. österr. Inverkehrbringer wg. Ginkgo [judgement]
Higher Administrative Court of Lüneburg – BVL [Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety] (represented by us) vs. Austrian distributor on ginkgo (pending)
Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg – on lobster caging (pending)
Higher Administrative Court of Bavaria, Munich, decision of 11 February 2015, Case No. 20 BV 14.494 - KVR Munich [municipal administration authority] vs. Breitsamer on individual portions of honey packaged & requirements of the Food Information Regulation [decision]
Higher Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg, Mannheim, judgement of 11 February 2012, Case No. 9 S 3331/08 – “Flor Essence” presentational medicinal product [judgement]
Higher Administrative Court of Bavaria, Munich, decision of 13 May 1997, Case No. 25 CS 963855 – vs. Free State of Bavaria on shark cartilage not being a medicinal product [decision]

We look forward to your inquiry

Contact