How section 20 UWG limits injunction claims and why knowledge, the violation, a continuing condition and court action require separate review.
, Mag. Bernhard Brandauer, Rechtsanwalt
Injunction claims under the Austrian UWG are subject to a short special limitation rule. A business challenging an advertising campaign, customer approach or other competitive act must therefore examine more than the underlying violation. The date of knowledge, the identity of the liable party and the objective date of the act are equally important.
Section 20 UWG states that injunction claims become time barred six months after the entitled party learned of the violation and the identity of the liable party. Irrespective of that knowledge, it states a period of three years from the violation. Subsection 2 contains a separate rule for a continuing unlawful condition.
These periods should not be calculated from a single screenshot or from the date of a cease and desist letter. The first step is a reliable chronology, exact classification of the claim and assessment of whether the conduct is complete or an unlawful condition continues.
The wording of section 20(1) UWG concerns injunction claims under the UWG. This article is therefore limited to that special limitation rule. Damages, accounts, contractual claims, trade mark rights and other causes of action must not be placed into the same calculation without a separate legal assessment.
An injunction claim seeks to prevent exact unlawful conduct in the future. The cause of action, party roles, challenged conduct and risk of repetition or first infringement must fit together. Whether a competitor, association or another body may bring a claim must additionally be reviewed under section 14 UWG and the relevant substantive provision.
Limitation does not replace that substantive review. A claim brought in time may lack legal merit. Conversely, a serious allegation may become unenforceable if the applicable period is not handled correctly.
The review path separates known conduct, a continuing condition and legal steps already under way. You can securely send the selected information to the firm after the assessment.
The violation, knowledge, responsible party, continuation and steps already taken determine the limitation review.
This review path does not calculate a deadline. It only organises the facts needed for legal assessment of limitation.
Record when the relevant person in the business learned of the exact violation and the identity of the liable party. Add the date of the conduct, every original item of evidence and later versions. Have both time axes reviewed before relying on an internal calculation.
Document what remains accessible, distributed or physically present. Preserve the location, date, full context and every change. Whether the facts amount to a continuing unlawful condition or only the effects of a completed act depends on the individual situation.
Preserve every letter, proof of service, response, possible acknowledgment and court document. Section 1497 ABGB gives particular legal relevance to acknowledgment and to bringing and duly prosecuting an action. The effect of negotiations must be assessed from their actual course.
Under the statutory wording, the six month period starts only when the entitled party has learned both of the violation and of the identity of the liable party. A vague suspicion, anonymous advertisement or unknown operator cannot be reduced to a reliable starting date by description alone. The decisive issue is which exact facts were known and when.
Within a business, information may reach marketing, sales, management or the legal department at different times. The review file should record who received which evidence, which conduct it revealed and when the responsible person or company could be identified. A later general statement such as “known for months” is not precise enough.
Preserve emails, advertising reports, platform notices, screenshots, legal notice details and internal forwarding records in their original form. Add a factual chronology without retrospectively aligning different states of knowledge. Only then can the legally required knowledge be assessed.
Section 20(1) UWG states a three year period from the violation irrespective of knowledge. It is therefore insufficient to search only for the first secure date of knowledge. The particular act must also be placed in time.
For a printed mailing, this may be the date of distribution. For online advertising, publication, amendment, repeated delivery and removal may occur at different times. Whether several versions are distinct violations or merely continue the same facts requires legal and factual assessment. A general article cannot decide that question from a file date.
Record every relevant version with its channel, period, audience and responsible business. The article on a UWG cease and desist letter from a competitor or association explains which campaign material is needed for an initial claim review.
Under section 20(2) UWG, the claim for removal under section 15 UWG and the injunction claim remain available while an unlawful condition continues. This rule should not be equated with the mere economic effects of a completed act.
A page that remains accessible, a designation still in use or advertising material that remains present may raise different issues from an advertisement delivered once and fully removed. What matters is what actually continues at the relevant time and to whom that condition can be attributed.
Document continuation through complete captures showing the URL, date and visible context. Record amendments and removal as well. The topic page on injunctions and interim relief addresses evidence, standing and the protective objective for ongoing competition violations.
An out of court demand documents that a claim has been asserted. It should not be treated without review as safely interrupting limitation. Section 1497 ABGB identifies express or implied acknowledgment and the bringing and due prosecution of an action as grounds for interruption.
Whether a response contains an acknowledgment cannot be inferred from courteous willingness to talk. Settlement discussions, standstill arrangements and partial responses must also be assessed from their exact content and course. Businesses should not assume a limitation effect from general wording.
If an action, application for interim relief or court decision already exists, preserve the service record, case number, relief sought and complete procedural history. Due prosecution and any procedural effects belong in the specific legal assessment.
Create a table with five columns: exact conduct, date of conduct, first evidence, knowledge of the responsible person or company, and legal step already taken. Link every row to the unchanged original evidence. Clearly label assumptions and information from third parties.
For online content, record every material version, the complete URL and visible context. For letters, include attachments, proof of service and the response. Court documents require all pages, annexes and electronic service information.
A concise chronology is sufficient for the initial contact. Confidential material should not be sent without control. State clearly if the conduct is ongoing or a court document has already been served so that the review can be prioritised accordingly.
Section 20(1) UWG states six months from knowledge of the violation and the liable party, and independently three years from the violation. Subsection 2 contains a separate rule for a continuing unlawful condition. The exact dates must be established from the individual facts.
That should not be assumed. Section 1497 ABGB identifies acknowledgment and the bringing and due prosecution of an action. The effect of a letter, response or negotiations depends on the exact content and course and requires separate review.
The wording of section 20(1) UWG covers injunction claims. Damages and other claims require their own assessment of the cause of action, loss, knowledge and applicable limitation. They should not be placed into the six month period.
Assess the claim, evidence, continuation and possible protective objective in the exact UWG case.
Record the sender, allegation, requested undertaking and possible court pressure separately.
The canonical German overview of gaining a competitive advantage by violating a market conduct rule.
The firm advises on advertising claims, injunctions and competition proceedings.
Topics
Give us a concise outline of the situation. We will clarify which documents are needed and which next step is appropriate.
Office
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg Österreich
Phone
+43 662 6280000