The so-called “order button” and the “cancellation button” are well established features in the European and German consumer protection law. And by 2026 the „withdrawal button“ will be added!

• The “order button“ (Section 312j German Civil Code) is the oldest one of the bunch: Since 2012, online consumer contracts require an explicit acknowledgement of the payment obligation by means of an “order with obligation to pay“ button. The courts apply strict standards.

• The “cancellation button“ applies to online contracts with continuing obligations. It is a creation of the German legislature with no origin in EU law, entered into force in 2022 (Section 312k German Civil Code). An increasing number of court rulings interpret the requirements strictly.

• And the new kid on the block: the “withdrawal button“! From 19 June 2026, an electronic withdrawal function must be provided for distance contracts concluded online. The first draft of the act is available now.

Violations not only have consequences for the contractual relationship, they can also result in warnings from competitors and class actions!
Find details on the latest button in this overview.

The Legal 500 states: “Lubberger Lehment is a renowned IP boutique firm with a focus on trademark law; their service portfolio includes trademark law aspects of M&A transactions, the management of trademark and design rights portfolios and the fight against product piracy, which is particularly availed of by clients in the luxury goods segment.” Further, The Legal 500 mentions: “Lubberger Lehment is one of the leading law firms in contentious disputes and places a special focus on assisting with proceedings concerning Internet-related issues.”

In the field of trademark law, our founding partner Dr. Andreas Lubberger has been placed in the Hall of Fame, and our Berlin partners Eva Maierski and Dr. Rani Mallick are seen as “Names of the Next Generation”. Further, our Berlin associates Dr. Julian Erfurth and Leonard Pietsch have been named as “Rising Stars” in both trademark law and unfair competition law.

The full ranking for trademark law is available here, and the ranking for unfair competition law can be found here.

In a trial for our client Shiseido, the Berlin Court of Appeal clarified that a trademark infringer must provide comprehensive information about distribution channels and upstream suppliers, and must submit complete evidence of this information (decision of 23 June 2020, 5 W 1032/20).

Shiseido had filed a claim against Amazon due to the distribution of trademark-infringing perfume products. Shiseido demanded amongst other things information about Amazon’s upstream suppliers and the further distribution channels. Amazon submitted a supplier invoice in which the invoice recipient and the Amazon warehouse address had been redacted. The Court of Appeal ruled that such redacting is not permissible. The presentation of documents must enable the claimant to verify the information provided and to effectively prevent further distribution of the infringing goods. The infringer’s interest in concealing his supply channels and distribution chains in such a case does not merit protection.