In the past, there had been an increasing number of warning letters prohibiting e-bay sellers in particular, but also retailers in the stationary retail trade, from using the terms "RRP", "recommended retail price" or "manufacturer's recommended retail price" without explanations.
Now the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) has ruled in a recently published judgement I ZR 271/03 that
a)
A price recommendation which does not contain express information that the recommendation originates from the manufacturer and/or is non-binding ("recommended retail price" or "manufacturer's recommended retail price") is not misleading for that reason alone. This is because the informed, reasonably observant and reasonable average consumer is aware that price recommendations are usually issued by the manufacturer and are non-binding.
b)
The use of an abbreviation which is known to the public as an abbreviation of a manufacturer's recommended retail price ("UVP") is likewise not inadmissible due to a violation of the requirement to mislead.
According to the Federal Supreme Court, the indications "recommended retail price" and "manufacturer's recommended retail price" clearly express to the consumer that it is a non-binding price. "Recommend" - according to the Federal Court of Justice explicitly - does precisely not denote a binding order according to normal linguistic usage, but a suggestion or advice. In its decision, the Federal Supreme Court again expressly focuses on the average consumer who is reasonably well informed, reasonably observant and reasonably circumspect.
The consumer was able to classify the word "recommendation" correctly. Even if the "non-binding nature" of the recommendation was not expressly indicated, this did not mislead the consumer. The relevant public was also aware that sales price recommendations usually came from the manufacturer.
Although the term "UVP", which is frequently used in trade, is an abbreviation which does not comply with the usual rules of abbreviation in the German language, the average consumer recognises and classifies it as a "recommended retail price" because it is used in everyday use. This applies in particular to the use of the abbreviation "UVP" in connection with a price comparison.
Source: Federal Court of Justice I ZR 271/03 of 07.12.2006
Attorney at Law Alexander Goldberg
Specialist attorney for intellectual property law and
Specialist attorney for information technology law (IT law)
a.goldberg@goldberg.de
