The LG Düsseldorf, said:

“If the defendant says that there was initially on the applicant to demonstrate that it had taken effect scientifically controversial statements, the court follows this view is not. Lit statements within the meaning of Article 13, paragraph 1. A) of Regulation 1924 / 2006/EC are forbidden, under the conditions of Article 28, paragraph 5 of Regulation 1924/2006/EG exceptionally permitted. According to Article 6 paragraph 2 of Regulation 1924/2006/EG, the food business of a health specification makes justifying the use of the claim. This means that first to make the applicant must demonstrate that the defendant lit health claims within the meaning of Article 13, paragraph 1. a) of Regulation 1924/2006/EG made in trade has. By submitting the appropriate expression of the websites of the defendant in the Appendix A 2 (p. 10 to 16 GA) the applicant has that – the rest remained undisputed fact – be sufficiently credible.

From Article 6, paragraph 5 of Regulation 28 1924/2006/EG also shows that there is then at the defendant, on whether the conditions of the present exceptional admissibility of every detail. This will include the information that the regulation 1924/2006/EG, including the provisions of Article 5 of Regulation 1924/2006/EG match. Does the advertiser this, nothing concrete, the use of the information is strictly prohibited. ”
In summary:

The person who advertises in connection with the sale of health-food has to prove the advertised effects, too.
The applicant has however only make credible that health claims have been made in trade. Bring with you the presentation of the relevant printouts of Internet sites where the health claims are figured out.

The LG Düsseldorf found that the disputed information from the online merchant just do not conform to the required 1924/2006/EG, but against in Article 5 paragraph 1 of Regulation 1924/2006/EG formulated conditions would conflict .

Reason: In accordance with Article 5 paragraph 1 of Regulation 1924/2006/EG nutrition and health claims are allowed only if the substances referred to by the information in the relevant product in a quantity are the by generally accepted scientific knowledge is such as to obtain the claimed nutritional or physiological effect (Art. 5 para 1st b) i) of Regulation 1924/2006/EG). In addition, the substances concerned in the relevant product available in a form which is available for the body (Article 5 para 1 lit. C) of Regulation 1924/2006/EG). Also, the quantity of the product whose consumption can be reasonably expected to contain a significant amount of active substances as established by generally accepted scientific data to obtain the claimed nutritional or physiological effect (Article 5 para 1 lit. D) Regulation 1924/2006/EG).

Already this has nothing concrete, the defendant can present – so the District Court of Düsseldorf:

“Repeatedly, it lacks even the exact name of the substance that will cause the corresponding positive effect. Not the of the defendant so far, at least in part using concepts of art are suitable to describe the substances are defined. The actual composition of the individual products can be the talk Do not remove the defendant. These results, contrary to the defendant not buy from the Anlagen AG 10, AG 15, AG 18, AG 20 and AG 21 installations listed, as is clear from the headings on the mushrooms ” Shii take, “” Maitake “,” Shiny Lackporling “,” Chinese caterpillar fungus “and” Brasil Egerling. “should be available in any form, composition and quantity alleged active ingredients in the products distributed by the defendant capsules and teas, is the equipment not to report. ‘
Conclusion of the court:

“Then, if it is established by generally accepted scientific evidence that the presence of the substances to which the disputed statements relate, respectively, in those displaced by the defendant means a positive nutritional or physiological effect (Article 5 para 1 lit . a) of Regulation 1924/2006/EG), it does not it. ”
Finally: to distribute the burden of Glaubhaftmachungslast in connection with the Health Claims Regulation.

Health Claims Regulation – Interesting Case LG Düsseldorf

Recently, an online retailer received a warning that had sold on his commercial website mushroom food supplements. Because of the warning: has the dealer advertised, among other things, that promote “the ingredients of the edible mushroom Maitake in a natural way the body’s immune system and thus strengthen the immune system.” Also promotes the “Shining Lackporling health, wellbeing and performance and strength so that” on nutritional way the whole organism. ” The dealer was not allowed to advertise in the form, the court in Düsseldorf.

What kind of statements, it was specifically?

The online retailer was prohibited (as defendant) as follows, in trade, advertise:

1st For the average “Lentinulin ®”

“The effect of nutritional Lentinulin evident in the strengthening and strengthening of the body’s natural defenses. This physiological effect is also of importance for early signs of aging. ”
“Already in ancient China Lentinulin was appreciated for its invigorating and revitalizing effect as a health elixir.”

2nd For the average “Grifolanin ®”:

“The ingredients of the edible mushroom Maitake promote a natural way the body’s immune system and thus strengthen the immune system. Grifolanin making an important nutritional contribution as a valuable and natural extension of many therapeutic interventions. ”

3rd For the average “Ganodermin ®”:

“The Shining Lackporling promotes health, wellbeing and performance and thus enhance the nutritional way the whole organism.”

4th For the average “Cordicipin ®”:

“The Chinese caterpillar fungus increases stamina and performance and shortens the recovery phase after physical stress.”

5th For the average “Agarikin ®”:

“Agarikin strengthens and reinforces the natural way the body’s own defense.”

6th For the average ShiiLing ® – mushroom tea “:

“The ShiiLing ® Power-Pilztee has an invigorating and detoxifying effect.”
Legal background to health claims related to the importance of a nutrient in growth, development and body functions

Under Article 13 of Regulation 1924/2006/EG (so-called “Health Claims Regulation”) are health claims that the role of a nutrient or other substance in growth, development and body functions describe strictly prohibited.

Exception: Under Article 28, paragraph 5 of Regulation 1924/2006/EG such statements are, however, until the adoption of the mentioned in Article 13 paragraph 3 of Regulation 1924/2006/EG list of eligible if the regulation 1924/2006 / EC and comply with the relevant national law.

Normally, a legal document revealing individual or corporate claims is often called as a Statement of Claim. This document carries an official communication stating that the alleged faulty individuals have caused damages.

In general, the certain amount of reimbursing money is proposed to the addressee as the cost of resulting damages and disadvantages towards the claimer. After all, filing a statement of claim has to be done in a proper way unless the legal case will be simply rejected by the court due to a simple mistake of technicality.

In terms of patents law, a claim comes up in the picture when something of an individual or corporate right is damaged or pirated. In this case, legal claims are commonly concerned by individual citizen and corporate when dealing with patents ownership disputes and settlements in front of the court.

The involvement of lawyers or attorneys is obliged in accompanying the procedural process of legal claims. Both claiming party and the alleged one have got the equal right to get a legal aid for the prosecution and litigation of adversarial justice.