57 C 7592/14•Filesharing damages, secondary burden of proof, and limitation
57 C 7592/14Gericht erster Instanz13.01.2015ImmaterialgüterrechtTeilweise gutgeheissen
Von Omnilex extrahiert
The Düsseldorf Local Court partially upheld a copyright claimant’s filesharing action. It ordered the defendant to pay €42.20 in damages and €70.20 in warning costs, with interest from 13 June 2014, and dismissed the remainder. The court addressed the updated licence-analogy calculation, the requirement that a connection holder’s account make a co-user’s responsibility seriously possible, and procedural preclusion of such an account. It also held that identifying the date of the warning letter in the payment-order application could sufficiently specify the claim for limitation purposes, despite mislabelling it as the infringement date, where no similar legal relationships existed. Litigation costs were divided 87% to the claimant and 13% to the defendant.
§ 97 UrhG; §§ 296, 282 ZPO; §§ 195, 199, 204, 852, 812 BGB; calculation of filesharing damages, secondary burden of presentation and limitation. Damages assessed by analogy with a licence require an updated calculation. The connection holder’s secondary burden of presentation is met only by pleading facts that make a co-user’s responsibility seriously possible; the timeliness and preclusion of such pleading are governed by §§ 296 and 282 ZPO. For suspension of limitation, identifying the date of the warning letter in a payment-order application can sufficiently individualise the claim even if that date is incorrectly described as the infringement date, provided there are no other similar legal relationships between the parties. The enrichment claim under §§ 852 sentence 1 and 812 et seq. BGB, subject to a ten-year limitation period, reaches only the benefit from downloading a single copy for personal use; dissemination does not itself confer enrichment.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2015-01-13
Aktenzeichen: 57 C 7592/14
ECLI: ECLI:DE:AGD:2015:0113.57C7592.14.00
Dokumenttyp: Urteil
Spruchkörper: Abteilung 57
Normen: § 97 UrhG; §§ 296,282 ZPO; §§ 195,199,204,852,812 BGB
1.Zur aktualisierten Berechnung des Schadenersatzes nach Lizenzanalogie bei Filesharing
2.Die sekundäre Darlegungslast des Anschlussinhabers erfordert den Vortrag eines Sachverhaltes, der die Täterschaft eines Mitnutzers ernsthaft möglich erscheinen lässt.
Für die Präklusion dieses Vortrages gelten die Vorschriften der §§ 296, 282 ZPO.
3.Die Benennung des Zeitpunktes des Abmahnschreibens im Mahnbescheid genügt auch dann, wenn dieser Zeitpunkt falsch als Urheberrechtsverletzung bezeichnet ist, der hinreichenden Konkretisierung zur Hemmung der Verjährung, wenn keine weiteren ähnlichen Rechtsbeziehungen zwischen den Parteien bestehen.
Der Beklagte wird verurteilt, an die Klägerin 112,40 EUR (in Worten: einhundertzwölf Euro und vierzig Cent) bestehend aus 42,20 Euro Schadenersatz und 70,20 Euro Kosten der Abmahnung nebst Zinsen in Höhe von 5 Prozentpunkten über dem jeweiligen Basiszinssatz seit dem 13.06.2014 zu zahlen.
Im Übrigen wird die Klage abgewiesen.
Die Kosten des Rechtsstreits tragen die Klägerin zu 87% und der Beklagte zu 13%.
Dieses Urteil ist vorläufig vollstreckbar. Dem jeweiligen Vollstreckungsschuldner wird gestattet die Zwangsvollstreckung durch Sicherheitsleistung in Höhe von 120% des jeweils zu vollstreckenden Betrages abzuwenden, wenn nicht vor der Zwangsvollstreckung der jeweilige Vollstreckungsgläubiger Sicherheit in Höhe von 120% des vollstreckbaren Betrages leistet.
Der Streitwert wird auf 850 Euro festgesetzt.
Whether the claimant was entitled to damages for copyright infringement through filesharing, including on a licence-analogy basis.
The claimant was entitled to €42.20 in damages.
The damages calculation was updated on a licence-analogy basis. The remaining restitutionary claim under §§ 852 and 812 et seq. BGB was limited to the benefit obtained by downloading a single copy for personal use; no enrichment arose from dissemination.
Whether the claimant was entitled to reimbursement of warning costs.
The claimant was entitled to €70.20 in warning costs.
The court awarded the stated amount for the warning.
Whether the defendant’s account of possible third-party use of the internet connection met the secondary burden of presentation and could be considered.
The account had to make a co-user’s authorship seriously possible; the rules on preclusion under §§ 296 and 282 ZPO applied.
A connection holder’s secondary burden of presentation requires facts that make infringement by another user a serious possibility. Timeliness is governed by the civil-procedure rules on preclusion.
Whether the limitation period was interrupted by the payment-order application’s identification of the warning letter’s date, despite describing that date incorrectly as the infringement date.
That identification sufficiently specified the claim to suspend limitation where no other similar legal relationship existed between the parties.
The stated date allowed the claim to be identified in the absence of other similar relationships between the parties.
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.