The warning association IDO has suffered its first serious setback before the BGH. Due to its lack of registration as a qualified trade association, the IDO can no longer enforce the judgements or injunctions it has obtained.
We have already reported on the IDO several times in the past, for example due to the unusually high remuneration of its Executive Board or various court proceedings regarding contractual penalty claims by the warning organisation. A new ruling by the Federal Court of Justice on 17 July 2025 – I ZR 243/24 is now likely to have dealt another serious blow to the IDO and put an end to the proceedings for those affected.
Judgment of the Federal Court of Justice – transitional provision only applies to the proceedings
The IDO had issued a warning to a medium-sized company in the pet supplies sector for breaches of the Price Indication Ordinance and was upheld by the Krefeld Regional Court. This underlying judgement was issued by Krefeld Regional Court on 4 November 2020 – i.e. before the “Act to Strengthen Fair Competition” was announced on 2 December 2020, which reformed the Unfair Competition Act. The company in question brought an action to defend against the injunction filed by the IDO in April 2024 and ultimately ended up before the BGH.
There, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant IDO lacked the substantive authority to conduct administrative remedy proceedings due to the new version of Section 8 (3) No. 2 UWG and the fact that it had not yet been entered in the list of qualified trade associations at the Federal Office of Justice (BfJ) pursuant to Section 8b UWG. The BGH ultimately followed this view and upheld the action to prevent enforcement.
The lack of registration of the defendant could not be remedied by the transitional provision of Section 15a (1) UWG. According to this provision, the registration requirement for qualified trade associations should not apply to court proceedings that were already pending on 1 September 2021. In short: Proceedings from the past should not fail due to the lack of registration of an association.
However, the transitional provision only applies to cognizance proceedings up to the end of disputes that are already pending – but not to enforcement proceedings or administrative remedy proceedings. It is true that the IDO’s right to sue continued to exist until the end of the underlying legal dispute, so that the association was able to obtain an injunction. However, it was incompatible with the aim of the registration requirement if injunctions obtained in this way could not be removed even though the trade association had not been entered in the qualified list.
What does this mean for those affected?
The judgement of the BGH provides affected companies with strong arguments to successfully defend themselves in ongoing proceedings against the IDO. An action to defend against enforcement measures based on an injunction obtained by the IDO in the past is the method of choice. As long as the IDO is not included in the list of qualified trade associations, it may not enforce judgements that have been obtained.
In our view, this also paves the way for the IDO to be released from cease-and-desist declarations issued to it. Affected parties should therefore endeavour to terminate the agreements they have already concluded with a reference to the recent BGH ruling in order to prevent the IDO from taking action against the company in the future. We will be happy to assist you in drafting an effective letter of cancellation to the IDO or in bringing an action to defend against enforcement.