NEWS

Using an outdated strikethrough price is misleading

Regional Court Wiesbaden, judgment of 24 Apr 2025, 11 O 1/25 – Misrepresentation through an inaccurate reference price

 Contents

Background

An online retailer for model cars advertised discounts using strikethrough “reference prices.” These were not the most recent selling prices but amounts charged many months earlier (e.g., €72.95). In fact, the product had been offered weeks before for €39.00 and at times even for €31.20.

Decision

The court held the pricing display to be misleading, constituting an infringement of the German Price Indication Ordinance (PAngV) in conjunction with the unfair-commercial-practices rules under the UWG. Referencing an outdated, higher price suggests a greater discount than actually granted.

Court’s Reasoning: The strikethrough price must reflect the most recent price

Consumers reasonably interpret a crossed-out price as the previous selling price. A reference price that was not charged immediately before the price reduction misrepresents the actual savings.

  • The advertised €72.95 was not the last price charged.
  • Immediately prior to the promotional prices (€31.20 / €39.00), the retailer had not advertised €72.95.
  • Absent clarification, consumers may assume the strikethrough price equals the most recent price — which was incorrect here.

To the point

Strike-through prices must reflect the most recently charged price – outdated reference prices are misleading and violate German pricing law (PAngV/UWG

Case No.: District Court of Wiesbaden 11 O 1/25

Source: https://www.dr-bahr.com/news/werbung-mit-veraltetem-streichpreis-in-online-shop-ist-irrefuehrend.html

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