In a still current decision (BGH v. 10.4.2008, I ZR 227/05 AZ), the Supreme Court has taken a position on the question of burden of proof for the case where the platform operator is taken as interfering or because of the breach of a duty to maintain safety in the claim. Basically the competition because of an injury explain unused indirect interferences an impossibility or unreasonableness of the injury prevention and prove. Because of the particular situation under the TDG, which refers to the application platform operators, this is after the high court exceptionally different. Must cite the inability to prevent injury, found positive, which means that the person abmahnt the operator because of injury and failure points out, these conditions also must prove. The platform operator has to produce such evidence, however, are set out specifically why he presented the measures were not reasonable. A decision which is to be welcomed, and at least for the vulnerable Operator of a platform whose users with the simplest means of industrial property rights may violate personal rights, etc., without that this would actually prevent a legitimate business model that gives a degree of certainty. www.fachanwalt-x-informationstechnologierecht.de http://www.anwalt-strieder.de/ attorney and lawyer specializing in IT law in Solingen and Leverkusen
0 comments:
Post a Comment