vowe dot net :: Court ruling against cell phone branding

Court ruling against cell phone branding

by Ragnar Schierholz

According to multiple sources (e.g. Golem, Stiftung Warentest) the Amtsgericht Potsdam (county court of Potsdam) has ruled against T-Mobile Germany (case no. 34 C 563/04) and declared the common branding of cell phones into network operator editions as illegal.

May that be a sign of hope for all users who are sick of these branded, stripped-down functionality phones that come with the plan?

The customer had complained about a special button on his Siemens A60, initially designed to access new short messages (SMS) directly but reprogrammed by the network operator to access a service subject to charge. T-Mobiles legal department claimed that the phone was not malfunctioning but working properly, as designed in T-Mobiles branded version. A non-branded version of the phone would not be available from T-Mobile. The customer filed a law-suit, to which T-Mobile did not respond at all. Thus, the judge ruled a default-decree. Again T-Mobile didn't respond, thus the ruling is effecitve now. Apparently T-Mobile wanted to keep a low profile on the case.
The rule was justified by T-Mobiles marketing promise of a Siemens A60 phone but the delivery of a non-original phone. Thus, this rule could be applied to all branded phones which are still sold under their original product name, but not for phones which are sold under a new brand of the network operator (e.g. T-Mobiles MDA series).

2005-03-15 :: email :: twitter :: facebook :: google+

Comments

"A non-branded version of the phone would not available from T-Mobile."

should either read:

"A non-branded version of the phone would not be available from T-Mobile."

"A non-branded version of the phone is/was not available from T-Mobile."

:-)

Sascha Reissner, 2005-03-15 16:45

Ooops, corrected that.

Ragnar Schierholz, 2005-03-15 16:48

>and declared the common branding of cell phones into network operator
>editions as illegal.

Wow, did we really read the same news-article? I came away with a totally different interpretation...

Sencer Yurdagül, 2005-03-15 16:55

@Sencer: Well, the court has not yet published the rule online (at least I couldn't find it, but some articles said the ruling declared the branding as "unzulässig" which can be translated to illegal.

To put it clear:
The branding itself is not subject of the rule, but the distribution if the manipulated/branded phone under it's original product name with the original manuals etc. is. The customer was promised (in this case) a Siemens A60 phone and apparently received one (incl. the original Siemens manual). But the phone's software was altered to request a service subject to charge when a particular button was pushed. Siemens' manual and the on-screen manual said the button would open unread short messages (SMS). That was a misleading of the customer and is declared as "unzulässig".

In other words, if an MNO wants to offer branded phones (especially with less functionality), they have to offer them under a different name.

Ragnar Schierholz, 2005-03-15 17:08

I'm wondering why you are linking to Golem instead of Heise online - Urteil gegen Handy-Branding. Are you going to diversify your media contacts? ;-)

Markus Thielmann, 2005-03-15 17:22

Wups, I just recognized it was Ragnar, not Volker who wrote that article. Sorry for that ;-)

Markus Thielmann, 2005-03-15 17:23

@Markus: I take that as a compliment ;-)

Ragnar Schierholz, 2005-03-15 17:37