Using the domain a lawyer provides a misleading advertising under § 3 UWG a.F. give. (Decision overruled)

The mere use of the domain a lawyer represents a misleading advertising by UWG.

The decision of the OLG Celle from the year 2001 had since led to lie fallow the domain, even though the decision, namely an identification of a law firm website is outdated by a long descriptive domain.

OLG Celle, Judgment of 29.03.2001 – 13 You 309/00 – attorney-hannover




The parties are in (…) approved Lawyers. The plaintiff takes the Defendant to cease and desist, when trading in the Internet under the domain “” perform without additional distinctive. The district court issued the injunction applied. Directed against this appeal by the Defendant.


The appeal is without merit.

The alleged injunctive relief is available to the plaintiff.

Under § 43 b BRAO and § 6 Abs. 1 BORA may Lawyers teach objectively about their professional activity in the form and content. Basically, a Lawyer represent his offer on a home page on the Internet. As with all other promotional activities by advertising on the Internet is illegal, if they violate the prohibition of misleading § 3 UWG violates (Feurich / Brown, BRAO, 5. Ed, § 43 b §. 38; vgl. BVerfG NJW 2000, 3195). That is the case here.

Public, that the “right” Lawyer want to find with the help of the Internet, obtained from the research – especially if they are using so-called Internet Search Engines – frequent summaries, where the documents in question are indicated with domain names. Encounter them here to the domain name “”, there is a danger of misleading. Because this domain name calling in any case for a considerable part of the legally-informed and circumspect Internet users forth the idea, under the domain name is the website offers a central location with a larger number of firms in the space … call. Speaks of such an understanding of traffic, that after the prima facie complaint lecture in similar domain addresses – “www.hannover-lawyer.of”, “”, “” or “” – centrally aggregated information about Lawyers can be accessed or. corresponding information pages under construction are.

The deception is suitable, to influence the decision of the sought-after public in connection with the appointment of a lawyer in competition law relevant way. Suffice, that potential clients through the misleading domain name “” causes are, to deal with the homepage of the Defendant, and that they would be without the domain name may not come across the website or they would not have considered (to lure with misleading information: Baumbach / Hefermehl, 21. Ed, § 3 UWG paragraph. 89 a).

The time required for an injunction urgency exists.

The urgency of the matter, pursuant to § 25 UWG suspects. The Defendant has not rebutted the presumption of urgency. Insofar as they claim, that the plaintiff objected to the Internet name had been known for quite some time before applying for a temporary restraining order, missing for any clue. The Glaubhaftmachungslast wear extent the Defendant.

The cost is based on § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO.

Please rate

For more information: