Don’t just be right, win your case.
We represent our clients before all national courts as well as the Court of Justice of the European Union, particularly in competition disputes (warnings or ‘cease and desist’ letters) and in administrative and criminal court proceedings.
We offer you comprehensive legal representation in conflicts, which in our opinion includes strategic consultation. In the event of an imminent dispute, we develop a complete conflict approach for our client. We clarify the facts, use them to estimate the possibility of litigation and assess its potential risks, point out alternatives and draft a detailed cost risk analysis. On that basis, we collaborate with the client to determine solutions in its best interest and then realise those solutions in court.

We always review the strategy that we decide upon with our client in advance of trial with regard to its probability of success and timeliness, keeping in mind that litigation is a dynamic process. Good legal representation seeks the best possible outcome by employing foresight and strong negotiating skills and is attentive to the client’s interests and evolving dispute resolution options at all times.

Court of Justice of the European Union

  • “Raspberry-Vanilla Adventure”, fruit tea, Teekanne vs. Centre for Consumer Protection vzbv, Case C-195/14 [judgment]
  • Wettbewerbszentrale vs. Ehrmann (on the claim ‘as important as the daily glass of milk’), Case No. C-609/12 [decision of the BGH ... + EuGH-judgment 10.4.2014 ...]
  • Self-service retail of bread and bakery products, judgment of 6 October 2011, Case No. C-382/10 [judgment]
  • Olive oil, bag-in-the-box, judgment of 7 September 2006, Case No. C-489/04 [judgment]

German Federal Court of Justice

  • Teekanne vs. Verbraucherzentrale vzbv, ‘Himbeer-Vanille Abenteuer II’ (on aromatised tea) [zum Urteil]
  • Wettbewerbszentrale vs. Ehrmann (on the claim ‘as important as the daily glass of milk’), Case No. I ZR 36/11 [decision of the BGH ... + BGH-judgment 12.2.2015]
  • Rotbäckchen vs. Verbraucherzentrale vzbv (on the health claim ‘learn strong’)
  • Carpe Diem vs. Schwabe (on a gingko-based beverage), judgment of 1 July 2010, Case No. I ZR 19/08 [judgment]
  • Müllermilch vs. Integritas (yoghurt with melissa and St. John’s Wort), judgment of 22 July 2004, Case No. I ZR 288/01 [judgment]
  • Gräsler Pharma vs. VSW (honey wine additives), judgment of 13 May 2004, Case No. I ZR 261/01 [judgment]

High Regional Courts

  • OLG Hamburg, judgment of 23 December 2014, Dairy company on the claim ‘100% natural’
  • OLG Koblenz, Case No. 9 U 405/13, Rotbäckchen vs. Verbraucherzentrale vzbv (on the health claim ‘learn strong’)
  • OLG Düsseldorf, Case No. I-20 U 59/12, vs. Verbraucherzentrale vzbv (on misleading marketing for aromatised tea)
  • OLG Frankfurt, vs. Verbraucherzentrale (on nutritional values table & guideline daily amounts)
  • OLG Karlsruhe, vs. Wettbewerbszentrale, (‘Near Water’: misleading marketing respective of aroma), judgment of 14 March 2012, Case No. 6 U 12/11 [judgment]
  • OLG München, Mangosteen, judgment of 6 August 2009, Case No. 6 U 5717/07 [judgment]
  • OLG Hamburg, ‘Färbendes Fruchtkonzentrat’ (on the indication of sugar), judgment of 12 October 2007, Case No. 5 U 5/07 [judgment]

High Administrative Courts

  • OVG Berlin-Brandenburg, regarding lobster cages (pending)
  • VGH München, KVR München vs. Breitsamer (on package portions, packaged honey and FIC regulation information), Bavarian Administrative Court 20th Senate, decision of 11.02.2015, 20 BV 14.494
  • VGH Mannheim, ‘Flor Essence’ (on a product’s presentation as a drug), judgment of 11 February 2012, Case No. 9 S 3331/08 [judgment]
  • VGH München, vs. Fr. Bayern resp. State v. Upper Bavaria (shark cartilage not a drug), decision of 13 May 1997, Case No. 25 CS 963855 [judgment]
We look forward to your inquiry