NEWS

TikTok publishes films without authorisation – no release from liability according to the Act on the Copyright Liability of Online Content Sharing Service Providers (UrhDaG)

Munich Regional Court I judgement of 09/02/2024, 42 O 10792/22 – “TikTok”

 Contents

TikTok cannot choose between licensing and blocking

The plaintiff is Nikita Ventures GmbH, a Berlin-based film rights distributor and operator of YouTube channels – specialising in the worldwide licensing of films via online platforms. It sueds TikTok (the online platform for creating and sharing videos, which are primarily generated and uploaded by users) for unauthorized publication of ten films on TikTok. The plaintiff offered TikTok to license these for a fee. However, no contract was concluded. The plaintiff is of the opinion that TikTok evaded the negotiations and “refused” to conclude a license agreement. TikTok argues that “service providers have no obligation to accept any offer from a rights holder” and has removed the films in question from the platform.

The plaintiff asserted claims for injunctive relief, information and damages under §§ 97 Abs. 1, 2, 94 Abs. 1, 19a, 15 Abs. 2 UrhG (Act on Copyright and Related Rights), §§ 1 Abs.2, 21 Abs. 1 UrhDaG (Act on the Copyright Liability of Online Content Sharing Service Providers) §§ 242, 259 BGB (German Civil Code).

TikTok's delaying tactics

TikTok did not fulfil its licensing obligation (§ 4 UrhDaG) because it failed to make the best possible efforts to conclude a license agreement. The plaintiff endeavored to meet the defendant’s demands and to provide the requested information. However, TikTok did not show any interest in reaching a mutually beneficial result quickly.

License obligation

The further question of whether TikTok had a functioning technical system for blocking has not to be discussed. TikTok has breached its license obligation (§ 4 UrhDaG) and it is therefore irrelevant whether the requirements for blocking are met (§§ 7, 8 UrhDaG). Service providers must fulfil the obligations from §§ 4, 7 – 11 UrhDaG cumulatively.

To the point

The new Act on the Copyright Liability of Online Content Sharing Service Providers (UrhDaG) does not allow online providers to sit back and negotiate. The rights holder does not have to tolerate stalling. Whether the platform operator has done its best to obtain a license is assessed according to the principle of proportionality.

MORE NEWS

Memorisation of AI training data infringes copyright

The Regional Court of Munich I has held that the memorisation of copyrighted training data in OpenAI’s GPT models infringes copyright. The judgment reshapes the legal framework for AI training and highlights key compliance risks for AI providers, rightsholders and companies using generative AI.
Trademark Law

No protection for Jägermeister’s well–known figurative trade mark “Hirschkopf”

Even for well–known trademarks, protection under trade mark law is only possible in so far as the opposing signs have at least a certain similarity.

Using an outdated strikethrough price is misleading

The Wiesbaden Regional Court held that advertising with outdated, significantly higher strike-through prices is misleading and violates the German Price Indication Ordinance (PAngV) in conjunction with the UWG. Consumers understand crossed-out prices as the most recently charged price; if the reference price does not reflect that and there is no clear explanation, the ad suggests an overstated discount. Therefore, strike-through prices must be tied to the price immediately charged before the reduction.
Trademark Law

“Bayern Bazi” Lacks Distinctiveness

The German Federal Patent Court upheld the refusal of the word mark “Bayern Bazi.” The combination of a geographical indication (“Bayern”) and a dialect term (“Bazi”) is perceived as a purely descriptive message (“particularly Bavarian/from Bavaria”), not as an indicator of commercial origin. Prior registrations did not help because the sign lacks a distinctive, imaginative character.
IP

Russian Sanctions: Intellectual Property Rights Also Affected

Article 12g of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine “No Russia Clause”
Trademark Law

Virtual Goods in the Spotlight – The General Court Issues a Landmark Ruling on Whether a Trademark for Virtual Goods Possesses Distinctive Character

Virtual Goods in the Spotlight – The General Court Issues a Landmark Ruling on Whether a Trademark for Virtual Goods Possesses Distinctive Character.

Karin Simon
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Susanne Graeser
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Uhlandstr. 2
80336 Munich
Germany

Karin Simon
Rechtsanwältin
Fachanwältin für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Susanne Graeser
Rechtsanwältin
Fachanwältin für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Uhlandstr. 2
D-80336 München