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
AI / Trademark Law

AI-driven trademark abuse: Why “register first, use later” is becoming riskier

AI tools make it easier to identify unprotected brand names. For businesses, this can quickly become costly on platforms such as Amazon.

Munich Regional Court I: Google must answer for false AI responses

Munich Regional Court I prohibited Google from further disseminating false statements from an “AI Overview”. The AI response was attributed to the search engine operator as its own statement.
Trademark Law

BGH “Mehmet Efendi”: No exhaustion from placing goods on the market in Turkey – association agreement does not extend the EEA

The BGH confirms: Placing EU trade mark goods on the market in Turkey does not trigger exhaustion within the EEA. The EEC–Turkey association framework does not extend the territorial scope of exhaustion; parallel imports into the EEA can be prohibited without the proprietor’s consent.
Trademark Law

BGH “LA BIOSTHETIQUE”: German courts have jurisdiction for targeted online advertising – supplier disclosure may be disproportionate

The BGH aligns international jurisdiction for online trademark infringement with the target market: what matters is where the addressed consumers/traders are located—not the server location or the advertiser’s seat. It also held that disclosure of suppliers/prior owners may exceptionally be disproportionate where the infringement lies solely in the presentation of exhausted goods.
Trade Secrets

CJEU: Infringing “possession” covers stock held abroad—and also indirect possession

The CJEU clarifies that trade mark owners may prohibit “possession” under Art. 10(3)(b) Directive 2015/2436 even where goods are stocked in another Member State—if intended for offering/placing on the market in the protection state. “Possession” also includes indirect control (supervisory/managerial authority).
Trademark Law

General Court: “Eco” may still shape the overall impression despite being descriptive

The General Court clarifies that descriptive elements can still matter in the comparison of signs—especially when placed at the beginning and drawing attention due to their length/position.

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