The higher regional court of Karlsruhe has recently taken a more than questionable decision to the scientific substantiation of work statements. The outrageous decision concerns an interlocutory proceedings and is therefore not yet final. That the judges in Karlsruhe will change your mind in the main proceedings, it is rather questionable. What is it about? A cosmetic Studio had advertised for a cosmetic ultrasound procedure with statements for skin rejuvenation. Manufacturer of ultrasound equipment had run through external doctors a well-founded multicenter placebo-controlled study with a sufficient number of clinical trials. Mind you the studies and evaluations not by the manufacturer carried so objective third party, but from external doctors. The Karlsruhe Regional Court had these studies also to be sufficient to confirm the selected effects.
The judge at the High Court the scientific head of the study see but now different, because at the same time shareholder of Forth place down business was. So it not constitute a study of independent or outside third parties”. “It means, in the judgment: the principal participates in shape of the managing partner even in the study through acquisition of scientific management, is not according to the understanding of the target public to an investigation of objective third-party, which is seen as a prerequisite for scientific substantiation”. This is according to the judge also irrelevant, to what extent the company and its associates had taken actual influence on the substantive result of the investigations. This decision can only be described as wrong. You ignoring the BGH decision to Alpecin, stating that it is vital, if exists a lege-artis conducted investigation and therefore also premises or order studies can meet as scientific evidence. If the view of the Karlsruhe judges actually prevail, that would be the end of the proprietary research and possibly also the contract research. Because this is not research objective third-party”, since it should arrive after the judges just don’t care whether the companies have taken actual influence on the substantive result of the investigations. Instead, any participation in the studies is sufficient, this might be how the then financial research. It is to be hoped that the judge in the proceedings to revise their opinion or at least the Supreme Court revokes this miscarriage of Justice.Other non-binding and free information around the cosmetic law, see