When section 25 UWG permits publication of a judgment and how legitimate interest, medium and scope are assessed in competition proceedings.
, Mag. Bernhard Brandauer, Rechtsanwalt
An injunction judgment does not automatically remove the continuing effect of a misleading market statement. Customers, business partners or other audiences may still believe the earlier impression. Section 25 UWG therefore provides for court authorised publication in defined circumstances.
The instrument serves factual clarification. It is neither a penalty nor permission to issue a freely worded public warning. Application, success, legitimate interest, medium and scope must fit the specific injunction dispute.
The distinction matters in practice. A request that is too narrow may fail to reach the affected audience. Unilateral publication of names and allegations can create additional legal risks.
Under section 25(3) UWG, where an injunction is sought, the court must, on application, grant the successful party authority to publish the judgment if that party has a legitimate interest. Publication is therefore expressly linked to the court injunction proceedings. A commercial dispute or an out of court objection alone does not satisfy this structure.
Under section 25(4) UWG, publication generally covers the operative part of the judgment. The court also determines the type of publication. Wording, medium and reach are not left to the successful party’s unrestricted later choice.
A claimant should include the publication objective in the procedural strategy at an early stage. The questions are which false impression continues, who received it and which factual information could correct it. Our injunction and interim relief topic addresses the underlying claim and possible urgent relief separately.
Legitimate interest cannot merely be asserted in the abstract. It must be explained from the effect of the specific infringement. A relevant consideration may be that an audience needs to be informed about an incorrect or incomplete commercial message and that the false impression continues.
In 4 Ob 28/26k, the Austrian Supreme Court states that publication is intended to inform the public and counter the spread of incorrect views. That decision concerned representative proceedings against an online platform. Its specific publication scope cannot automatically be transferred to a dispute between two businesses.
A business case therefore requires evidence of which advertisement, communication, platform display or other conduct reached which audience. Only then is there a basis for assessing whether publication may be justified and in what form.
The short review path separates a pending injunction claim, an existing judgment and a unilateral public warning. You can securely send the selected information to the firm after the assessment.
The procedural position and the interest in publication must be reviewed from the documents.
Publication of a judgment requires a court proceeding context. A public response outside the proceedings must be assessed separately.
Identify which audience was reached by the alleged infringement, which medium can actually reach it and what scope may be necessary for factual clarification. The application and legitimate interest must be supported by the particular case.
Read the operative part and the publication authorisation together. Finality, the court specified medium, scope, time limit and any cost orders also need review. Do not publish more than the authorisation covers.
Section 25 UWG is not a licence for public denunciation. Secure the facts and evidence first. Clarify the claim, procedural objective and communication risks before publishing names, allegations or an asserted infringement.
Publication should reach the audience affected by the challenged conduct. A local advertisement, a nationwide campaign and a communication sent only to selected business customers have different reach. There is no automatic formula selecting a newspaper, website or trade publication.
An online business model does not in itself exclude publication in print. Decision 4 Ob 28/26k confirms this for the representative proceedings assessed there. Whether a similar combination of media is appropriate in another case depends on its audience, distribution channel and need for clarification.
Section 25(5) UWG permits the court in civil proceedings, under the statutory conditions, to determine publication content that differs from or supplements the operative part. Where the application is made only after the close of the oral hearing, the statute sets a deadline of no later than four weeks after the judgment becomes final. Whether that route is still available must be assessed from the case file.
Court authorised publication rests on an application, proceedings, success and a judicial determination. A self drafted warning about a competitor has none of those safeguards. It may contain factual assertions, opinions and names that require their own legal assessment.
A business should not try to pre-empt a publication order with social media posts, circular emails or warning lists. Evidence may develop differently during the proceedings than initially expected. An excessive public statement may also make a factual settlement or court resolution more difficult.
The decisions should remain separate: assess the alleged infringement and injunction claim first, formulate the specific clarification interest second, and then develop the appropriate publication request. A possible damages claim for a competition infringement has separate requirements.
Useful material includes the challenged advertising or communication in its original form, information on the period and distribution channel, reliable details of the audience reached and the previous correspondence. For pending proceedings, the claim, pleadings, hearing records, decisions and appeal documents should also be available.
A clear description of the intended clarification is equally helpful. Is a false impression among existing customers to be corrected, did the matter reach the wider public, or is only a limited trade audience affected? This informs the review of medium and scope but does not replace the court’s determination.
A party that already holds a publication authorisation should provide its exact wording, specified period, designated medium and cost provisions. This reduces the risk of publishing outside the authority granted by the court.
No. For an injunction claim, section 25(3) UWG requires an application, success and a legitimate interest. The court grants the authority and determines the type of publication.
No. The suitable medium depends on the circumstances and the audience reached. The court determines the type of publication. Online advertising neither automatically excludes nor automatically justifies print publication.
No. A unilateral warning is not court authorised publication. Names, factual assertions and allegations require a separate legal review and may create additional risks.
Evidence, the injunction objective and possible urgent relief in competition law.
Loss, causation and documentation as separate requirements.
The tool structures the claim, supporting evidence, comparisons and campaign status.
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