Defense against Sandhage warning from lawyer

Lawyer Gereon Sandhage is a German lawyer who specializes in competition law. His law firm is based in Berlin and he mainly represents companies in connection with written warnings due to violations of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG). Attorney Sandhage has been known to our law firm for many years due to the large number of warnings he has sent in connection with online stores and online marketplaces.

Signing the cease-and-desist declaration sent by lawyer Sandhage without further ado, but not paying anything, is not promising according to our experience. This is because Sandhage will then sue for the claims. This also makes the matter unnecessarily expensive. In addition, you are threatened with severe contractual penalties if you sign the cease-and-desist declaration without consultation and examination and then violate it because you have not or not completely eliminated the infringement of competition before you have submitted the cease-and-desist declaration. We therefore advise against this approach.

It is not in your interest to simply sign the cease-and-desist declaration sent by lawyer Sandhage and pay the amounts demanded. Firstly, you may have to pay nothing or less. In addition, you may face high contractual penalties if you sign the cease-and-desist declaration without consulting and reviewing it and then violate it because you have not or not completely remedied the infringement of competition before you have submitted the cease-and-desist declaration. Use our free Mueller.legal initial assessment to find out more. You will already receive helpful tips on how to deal with the warning letter.

Under no circumstances Ignoring a warning letter is the worst possible solution. In competition law in particular, you must expect the warning letter issuer to apply for an interim injunction against you after the deadline set for submitting the cease-and-desist declaration has expired. This not only makes the matter significantly more expensive, but also completely unnecessary.

This approach is not recommended. Please do not disclose any information that unnecessarily complicates your legal defense. Instead, take advantage of our free initial assessment and benefit from our experience in dealing with a warning letter from lawyer Sandhage. Even and especially if the infringement of competition law has actually occurred and you are responsible for it, a legal defense makes sense. This is simply because you must prevent further infringements of competition law in the future in order to avoid being repeatedly warned or confronted with contractual penalty claims.

Typically, a warning letter from the law firm Sandhage will indicate that you have committed an infringement of competition law.

The warning letter then asks you to submit a declaration of obligation and cease-and-desist declaration with penalty clause.

In addition, you will be asked to pay compensation for damages and legal fees.

Under no circumstances should you do either! This is because signing a cease-and-desist declaration creates a contract that is valid for life and can no longer be amended. If you violate this declaration, you may be obliged to pay a high contractual penalty. You are also obliged to stop the infringement immediately and never to repeat it. Always seek advice from a lawyer first. You are welcome to take advantage of our free initial consultation offer.

While the law firm Sandhage has concentrated in recent years on the "classic warnings" such as the incorrect/missing cancellation policy or the incorrectly placed OS link, the law firm is now increasingly issuing warnings for breaches of the Packaging Act as well as other competition violations such as incorrect advertising of products on sales platforms such as eBay and Amazon.

If you search for the Sandhage law firm on the Internet, Mr. Sandhage is repeatedly accused of sending abusive mass warnings. In fact, the assertion of a considerable number of infringements of the same legal provision can be an abuse of rights. However, the abuse of rights must always be positively established in each individual case. As this determination must be made in court, this can prolong and increase the cost of the proceedings. If, on the other hand, the abuse of rights is established in court, the warning is invalid and you do not have to pay anything. It can therefore be worthwhile to establish this. However, you cannot assume per se that a warning letter received from Mr. Sandhage is an abuse of rights.

Thanks to the new Act against Abuse of Warnings, an abusive assertion is to be assumed in case of doubt if one of the seven indications of abuse of rights listed there is given. Based on this wording, a court should be required in future to assume an abuse of rights in case of doubt.

Indications of an abuse of rights are, for example, if the assertion of the claims primarily serves to give rise to a claim against the infringer for reimbursement of expenses or the costs of legal action or the payment of a contractual penalty. The same applies if  a competitor asserts a significant number of infringements of the same legal provision by means of warnings, if the number of infringements asserted is disproportionate to the scope of the competitor's own business activities or if it can be assumed that the competitor will not bear the economic risk of the extrajudicial and judicial action itself. A problem with the new legal provision is the existence of various undefined legal terms. It has not yet been clarified what exactly constitutes a "significant number" or how one can prove that the claim actually served primarily to give rise to claims for reimbursement of costs. The party invoking the provision must prove the existence of such characteristics. It is therefore best to seek legal advice. Our initial consultation is free of charge.

Lawyer Sandhage represents a large number of companies in a wide variety of sectors. For example, we are aware of warnings in the areas of clothing, shoes, bags, jewelry, cell phone accessories or printed products.

If you have received a warning letter from Gereon Sandhage on behalf of one of the companies he represents, please contact a lawyer experienced in competition law.

• Acario UG (limited liability)
• Autohaus Frank UG (limited liability)
• Bremsenkönig UG
• Chrono Exklusiv GmbH
• Como-Sonderposten GmbH
• Erdigo UG
• iOcean UG
• Marcel Frank
• Michal Piotr Konatowski e.K.
• Plug Cable Adapter UG because of the brand "Flytouch"
• Juweler Chronotage GmbH
• Wellnexx4you UG
• komtechnik GmbH
• Sachse Vertriebs GbR
• Plogoo UG
• Juliana Heizmann
• Lothar Fürst as owner of the fashion label MH My-Musthave