Yalnizca

Coat, English limited and stock companies using shelf companies and shell corporations in Germany since the Centros decision (ECJ v. 09.03.99, case C-212/97) and the decision in the case of uberseering (ECJ v. 05.11.02 RS. C-208/00) in 2002, buying a British limited was advertised in many places. The motivation for many prospective customers of an English capital company was primarily due to the low initial capital of only 1. Although the care of an English limited overwhelmed most of the buyers and the administration only with help from third parties and with significant cost to accomplish was, sales boomed until summer of 2008.

Then, the haunting was ending. “Because the German legislature, the English limited a thorn in the flesh” was a German alternative was created and (limited) launched the entrepreneurial society. Here, too, the minimum capital is only 1. At the same time, the legislature has taken the opportunity and within the framework of the MoMiG (Modernisierungs-and) Abuse Control Act) the Act comprehensively modernized. The legislature has deliberately not limited the possibilities for the establishment of stock companies, but rather facilitates facing the cash pooling scheme. Therefore shall apply unchanged, that buying a stock GmbH or stock-AG is a desirable and therefore sought after way very quickly to start a company. Is a stock company when (as the name suggests) is a company based on stock.

This can be for example in the form of GmbH, AG, GmbH & co. KG, or a so-called Societas Europaea (European company). These shelf companies are”virgins, so still no business activity have had. The companies be established merely for the purpose of later sale. They are equipped so that the buyer can immediately be active with her. Above all, this means that the company in the commercial register is registered and that the capital was deposited. Furthermore – at least the reputable providers – was a vote of the company with the competent Chamber of Commerce, as well as a registration of society in the business office and the IRS.

AG Munich, judgment of November 11, 2009, AZ.: 142 C-14130/09 also was in an earlier decision of the AG of Munich (judgment of November 11, 2009, AZ: 142 C-14130/09) noted that comes an application of 97a II Copyright Act only if there is a substantial infringement into account. In the matter was the Audiobook of “The way of the beam” accused the defendants of Dieter Bohlen on the Internet Exchange eDonkey to download offered. The Court sentenced the defendant to pay EUR 1006,00 to the plaintiff. In this decision, the applicability of 97a is negated II UrhG. The AG Munich took this as follows: “a capping of the incurred costs in accordance with article 97 a paragraph 2 UrhG present also did not come into consideration. The offer one Urheber Recht lieh LIEH copyright protected work within the framework of an Internet Exchange as eDonkey, is already not insignificant violation of law in the meaning of that provision. This arises from the fact that the contested infringement of rights in the public make of is a copyrighted work.

It arrives for the infringement just not so, how many users actually accessed the offered work, but how many users of Internet swap copyrighted and made publicly accessible plant would have to access”the other versions are remarkable, because the Court assumed that regularly several 100,000 users is to use this Exchange. “It’s known court that at Internet exchanges such as eDonkey regularly several 100,000 users at the same time provided can access files on the download. Of this magnitude can be no longer assumed by a minor violation of the law, since unchecked and without reservation the copyrighted work was made available to a wide public. The referred to as far as exemplary cases of a minor violation of the law (insert a map on a private website, use a photograph in the) Under a sales offer an Internet auction Exchange) affect completely different bearing cases, because a significantly lower, gated persons addressed or is but offered the protected work is not for reproduction.” Attention should be also two further points of this decision. For one, the Court does a damages claim gem.

97 para 2 UrhG amounting to 500.00 as appropriate. This is determined in the context of the license analogy. Still the Court makes it clear once again that no original power of attorney should be attached to a warning: “the warning was also due, even if no original authority according to section 174 BGB was attached to her. Although section 174 applies to BGB of its wording also business-like actions. A cease and desist letter as such but has no right shaping effect opposite the Dunned down. The injured person can successfully sue the infringer even without warning. The warning is only at the question of how the costs distribute ZPO are a role within the framework of the balance in accordance with article 93. “The provision of section 174 is a power of attorney be accompanied BGB with unilateral legal transactions, but not intended to make it easier for the infringer, to estimate the risk of costs of a process (OLG Hamm, judgment of 17. 7.2008, business signs 4 U 60/08).” More information is available on our website: your Tobias Arnold