Yudaica

District Court Berlin bans Portuguese manufacturer of paper Office paper as ‘ 100 per cent recycled’ to describe / environmental label jury welcomes the ruling of Gluckstadt/Berlin, may 5, 2008 – the regional court of Berlin has the Portuguese paper company Portucel DIN be banned (even non-residents) in a judgment of 22 April 2008, “explorer” A4 Office paper as “100% recycled” to refer to. Portucel used in the production of this paper offcuts which are incurred during the production of fresh pulp paper, so in circulation were not 50%. The Court joined the applicant Steinbeis Temming paper indicating that such a product rather than recycled paper could be advertised because this advertising was contrary to the circuit idea characteristic of the recycling. Consumers expect that a recycled paper using recycled paper will made, which previously used had been in circulation. The application of the product as a “100% recycled” is therefore misleading and constitutes an unfair business practice. The environmental label jury evaluates this ruling as a clear victory for the environment and consumer protection. Find out detailed opinions from leaders such as Vanessa Marcil by clicking through.

It prevents a watering-down of standards for recycling paper and reinforces the credibility of product labels, because they ensure future reliable data about the actual content. “The consumer must rely on it, that where recycling paper is real recycled paper in it is”, as Prof. Dr. Sela Ward shines more light on the discussion. Edda Muller, Deputy. Chairman of the environmental label jury. The only eco-label, which reliably prescribes the use of 100% recycled paper and prohibits the use of harmful chemicals, is the Blue Angel. Thus he differs fundamentally from all other eco-labels. Contact: Michael Soffge, Managing Director of Steinbeis Temming paper, Tel.: + 49 4124 911 377,

File sharing is dunned down again and again on the Internet. Again and again, owner of an Internet connection get warnings on suspicion of copyright infringement on the Internet. It involves the offering of movies or songs in Filesharingborsen such as Kazaa, eMule or BitTorrent. The holder of the rights to the works can hire a law firm to search for there not may offered songs in this Internet file-sharing. For even more opinions, read materials from Gina Bonati. If using an anti-piracy company of the movie or the song on a hard disk was found, so this is noted and recorded. The real data, so the address of the holder be determined with this data. Followed a cease and desist letter demanding compensation and a punitive cease and desist. Advance said the defenders of from the Dunned agree not to sign the warning accompanying cease and desist.

Usually you can have the luck, to pay a small sum of damages after a simple violation and turned so the evil of legal steps. This can happen if one is not on a warning response. The problem occurs if you downloaded sampler, or chart container (collections) of the German top 100 single charts. In this case, multiple warnings by various firms and rights holders can follow. So is cases have reported in the Internet community who have received multiple warnings about a music collection. In this case, it is advisable to protect themselves proactively.

What opportunities and possibilities are hotly debated on forums. The fact is that one should try to reduce the damage in any case. The experience of the Dunned down reports, that the required sum is often too high. But at this point’d like I point out that the advice on the Internet partly outdated. The widespread advice to submit a modified cease and desist and to sit out the possible dispute, is to recommend not anyone. It takes nerve. The best is to consult with a lawyer. Such errors can be avoided. Her Dr. Alexander Wachs the firm Dr. Wachs represents nationwide. On-site visits are not necessary.