2026-05-20 - LD Hamburg - Occlutech v. Lepu Medical - UPC_CFI_553/2025

ENGLISH: 1. An obligation to refrain from an act also requires a permanent compliance with effective measurements to ensure that the compliance is uninterrupted and permanent, R. 354.4 RoP. 2. It is a general rule, that a defendant is obliged to control third-parties which it assigns tasks to or which it grants the possibility to execute changes on behalf of the defendant [here: update of a website]. 3. If a defendant uses the marketing platform of a third party and provides the content for it, it is the defendant’s obligation to make sure that the contents of that platform, even when automatically translated do not lead to a non-compliance with a court order. 4. A disclaimer is not sufficient – regardless of the dispute around its readability – when its content is contradicted by other information on the website or by a subsequent communication.

Hamburg LD imposed a penalty payment of EUR 58,800 against the Defendants under R. 354.4 RoP for non-compliance with a penalty-reinforced cease-and-desist order in PI proceedings. The court reaffirmed that the obligation to refrain from infringing acts requires permanent, effective compliance and that defendants remain responsible for third parties (here: a web-development service provider and an automated B2B marketplace) they assign tasks to. Following the CoA in Belkin v Philips, 'offering' under Art. 25(a) UPCA was treated as an autonomous, economic concept covering the invitatio ad offerendum; a disclaimer is not sufficient when its content is contradicted by surrounding (German-language) material or by subsequent sales communications. Test inquiries by claimant's counsel were held not to constitute bad faith.