THINKING LITIGATION.

Rohnke Winter

THINKING LITIGATION.

Rohnke Winter are barristers at the German Federal Supreme Court. We also act as arbitrators and provide expert opinions. Christian Rohnke and Thomas Winter think in all dimensions.

LAWYERS

REPUTATION

It is our objective to convince you as our client and colleague of the quality of our briefs and presentation at oral argument. We aim to build long-term relationships. We are grateful for recommendations and for the recognition our work has found in the past.

"Surprisingly, Rohnke Winter (...), were even able to slightly increase their market share."

juve.de | 29.11.2021 | translated from German

More lawyers than ever before participated with recommendations in our ranking on lawyers at the “Bundesgerichtshof” (Federal Supreme Court). Surprisingly, Rohnke Winter […] were even able to slightly increase their market share.

This time, for the first time, a three-digit number of recommendations went to a single lawyer: exactly 100 to Prof. Dr. Christian Rohnke. “Sovereign”, “convincing”, “good standing at the Federal Supreme Court”, praise participants in the JUVE survey. Rohnke’s law firm partner Dr Thomas Winter is in second place in the individual ranking with 76 recommendations. Among other things, they say about him: “Excellent team player, seeks intensive coordination with clients and the lawyers from the instance”.

Prof. Dr. Christian Rohnke

“with him you can – hardly – lose”.

Translated from Juve Handbook 2020/2022

“strong BGH lawyer in intellectual property law”.

Translated from Juve Handbook 2019/2020

“excellent, pleasant to deal with”

Translated from Juve Handbook 2017/2018

dr. Thomas Winter

“can grasp complex legal issues extremely quickly”.

Translated from Juve Handbook 2020/2021

“excellent lawyer, excellent briefs”.

Translated from Juve Handbook 2019/2020

“extremely smart and assertive, also in verbal proceedings”.

Translated from Juve Handbook 2017/2018

A selection of our cases

The cases we have successfully litigated before the Federal Supreme Court are evidence of our work. We have gathered a small selection that shows the scope of our work. We have deliberately limited the number of examples.

II ZR 312/19

Judgement: 23.11.2021

The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court) rules in favour of our client that shareholders of the target company are only entitled to a fair consideration in the event of a takeover under the WpÜG if they accept the offer. The court also clarifies that a non-accepting shareholder also has no claim for damages if the offer price subsequently proves not to be reasonable.

The judgement

The article

I ZB 21/21

Judgement: 9.12.2021

Our appeal against an order declaring an arbitral award against our client for payment of more than EUR 142 million enforceable is successful. The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court) further develops the case law to the effect that a violation of an arbitral party’s right to be heard can also lie in the fact that the Higher Regional Court perpetuates a violation of the arbitral tribunal’s right to be heard in the event of non-remedy.

The judgement

The article

IV ZR 144/21

Judgement: 26.1.2022

In its landmark decision, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court) rejects claims against the insurer we represent due to plant closures in the course of the Corona pandemic. The reasons for the judgement allow the conclusion that the enforcement of such claims against other insurers is unlikely to be considered.

The judgement

The article

Verzeichnis nach Senaten

I ZR 153/14

Judge. 12.03.2015

BMW-Emblem: We secure an important success for car manufacturers with regard to the use of their trademarks by suppliers of spare parts.

I ZR 153/14

Judge. 12.03.2015

BMW emblem: We achieve an important success for the automotive industry with regard to the labeling of spare parts and accessories by third-party manufacturers.

I ZB 3/14

Judge. 16.04.2015

The Supreme Court reject a challenge against the enforceability of an arbitral award which secures our client’s powers in the board of a subsidiary.

I ZR 75/14

Judge. 11.06.2015

Tauschbörse III: One of numerous cases which we obtained on behalf of copyright owners in their fight against piracy.

I ZR 36/14

Judge. 28.01.2016

Feuchtigkeitsspendendes Gel-Reservoir: An example for our work in complex litigations in the field of cosmetics, food and drugs law.

I ZR 253/14

Judge. 12.01.2017

Supporting the complaint of the computer games manufacturer represented by us, the Supreme Court prohibits the sale of software “bots” that allow users to gain advantages in the game.

I ZB 52/15

Judge. 27.07.2017

Sparkassen-Rot: In a precedent-setting ruling that clarifies numerous issues of acquired distinctiveness in trademark law, the Supreme Court rules in favor of the trademark owner represented by us.

I ZR 110/16

Judge. 09.11.2017

form-strip II: We defend the famous three-stripes-trademark for sports shoes against attempted copying by a competitor. The Federal Supreme Court decides fundamental questions of trademark law in favour of our client.

I ZR 71/17

Judge. 20.09.2018

Industrienähmaschinen: The Federal Supreme Court finds in favour of our client, a manufacturer of industrial sewing machines. The Court accepts our position that a passing-off can exist in industrial products even if they bear different trademarks.

I ZR 167/17

Judge. 24.01.2019

Meda Gate: On our application the Federal Supreme Court grants the right to appeal and decides in favour of the manufacturer of design furniture represented by us. Following our arguments the Court states fundamental rules concerning the comparison of protected designs with the existing state of the art.

I ZR 228/15

Judge. 30.04.2020

With the decision “Reformistischer Aufbruch II”, the Supreme Court readjusts the requirements for reporting on current events within the meaning of Section 50 UrhG. We succeed in defending our client’s freedom of the press against the application for a ban by a prominent politician.

ZR 113/20

Judge. 09.09.2021

In this legal tech case, the Supreme Court decides in favour of our client that the creation of a draft contract with the help of a digital legal document generator does not constitute a legal service within the meaning of Section 2(1) RDG.

I ZB 21/21

Judge. 09.12.2021

Our appeal against an order declaring an arbitral award against our client for payment of more than EUR 142 million enforceable is successful. The Supreme Court develops his case law to the effect that a violation of an arbitral party’s right to be heard can also lie in the fact that the Higher Regional Court perpetuates a violation of the arbitral tribunal’s right to be heard in the event of non-remedy.

I ZB 88/19

Judge. 23.07.2000

In this matter, we defended an ICC arbitration award against the unsuccessful arbitration respondent’s motion to vacate.

II ZR 250/12

Judge. 13.05.2014

In a case concerning conflicts between inheritance and company law, the rights of the estate’s executor represented by us prevail in the shareholder meeting.

II ZB 29/12

Judge. 01.07.2014

In this case under the law concerning investor claims, we successfully defend our client against claims of incorrect data in the annual financial statement.

II ZR 384/13

Judge. 16.06.2015

The Supreme Court decides the principal question concerning the premature termination of agreements with subsidiaries against our position; nonetheless, we succeed in defending the appeals judgement granting monetary compensation to our client.

II ZR 275/14

Judge. 12.04.2016

In litigation against a minority shareholder, we successfully defend the right of the majority shareholder and parent company.

II ZR 121/15

Judge. 14.06.2016

The Supreme Court sustains our client’s position that holders of participation rights have only limited rights of information and accounting.

II ZR 255/16

Judge. 19.12.2017

Following our appeal, the Federal Supreme Court holds that a minority shareholder of a GmbH & Co. KG cannot bring claims in the name of the KG against the outside director of the GmbH and dismisses the claim against the director represented by us.

II ZR 175/18

Judge. 16.07.2019

In a new leading case, the company law senate of the Supreme Court decides in favor of our client that profit transfer agreements will not be subject to specific requirements as long as they are not a conflict with the statutes of the company.

II ZR 355/18

Judge. 27.10.2020

In this complex dispute, we obtain the reversal of a conviction of the managing director under section 64 sentence 1 GmbHG.

II ZR 312/19

Judge. 23.11.2021

The Supreme Court rules in favour of our client that shareholders of the target company are only entitled to a fair consideration in a takeover under the WpÜG if they accept the offer. The court also clarifies that a non-accepting shareholder also has no claim for damages if the offer price subsequently proves not to be reasonable.

II ZR 215/20

Judge. 25.01.2022

The Supreme Court overturns a conviction of our client because the Court of Appeal had applied Polish company law in a legally erroneous manner without first ascertaining the requirements of the Rome II Regulation.

II ZR 181/21

Judge. 21.06.2022

In this case we enforce the remuneration claims of colleagues who had been instructed by the special representative of a public limited company to enforce claims for damages against the company’s management board.

III ZB 63/10

Judge. 28.03.2012

The Supreme Courts decides the fundamental question of arbitrator’s compensation based on the value at issue in favor of our client.III ZB 63/10

III ZR 33/14

Judge. 09.10.2014

The successful defense of a payment clause in mobile telephone contracts is one example of our work on behalf of companies in standard form cases.

III ZR 51/13

Judge. 04.12.2014

The Supreme Court rejects an attempt to claim “preventive” damages against the state represented by us.

III ZR 4/15

Judge. 23.07.2015

In a case involving complex questions of state liability under European law, the Supreme Court rejects a claim based on alleged age discrimination against the state represented by us.

III ZR 126/15

Judge. 18.02.2016

The Supreme Court renders a precedent-setting decision on standard clauses used by child care centers and upholds the rights of the parents represented by us.

III ZR 565/16

Judge. 19.12.2017

On appeal of the financial services company represented by us the Federal Supreme Court corrects a long-standing jurisprudence of the Court of Appeals with regard to the burden of proof for supplying the customers with prospectuses.

III ZR 42/19

Judge. 17.10.2019

In a judgement of fundamental importance, the Federal Supreme Court decides in favor of our client, that a party can be liable for damages if it institutes legal proceedings against another party in violation of a contractual choice of forum clause.

III ZR 175/19

Judge. 18.02.2021

In this decision, the Supreme Court concretises the legal relationships of the parties involved in the so-called triangular relationship under social assistance law (here: youth welfare law) in favour of the service provider represented by us.

III ZR 194/19

Judge. 20.01.2022

The Supreme Court clarifies that in order to assess the correct accounting valuation of a (possibly) risky claim in liability proceedings against the auditor, it is generally necessary to obtain an expert opinion.

IV ZR 31/14

Judge. 10.12.2014

Following our petition to grant leave to appeal, the Supreme Court vacates a judgement concerning the interpretation of will for breach of our client’s right to a fair hearing.

IV ZR 342/15

Judge. 24.02.2016

The Supreme Court limits the powers of the executor concerning transactions without consideration in favor of the heir represented by us.

IV ZR 238/15

Judge. 07.12.2016

We succeed in defending a British life insurer based on highly technical time bar arguments.

IV ZR 527/15

Judge. 14.12.2016

The Supreme Court rules that invalidity insurance has to compensate an injured person based on the last occupation while healthy, irrespective of later developments.

IV ZR 437/15

Judge. 05.04.2017

Following our petition to grant leave to appeal, the Supreme Court vacates a judgement concerning the interpretation of will for breach of our client’s right to a fair hearing.

VI ZR 495/18

Judge. 14.01.2020

The Supreme Court recognises the rating presentation of one of the companies represented by us in an internet rating portal (here:www.yelp.de) as admissible.

IV ZR 144/21

Judge. 26.01.2022

With this landmark decision, the Supreme Court rejects claims arising from a business closure insurance policy held by the plaintiff with the defendant under a property contents insurance policy due to a restaurant closure that occurred in connection with the COVID 19 pandemic.

IV ZR 144/21

Judge. 26.01.2022

In its landmark decision, the Supreme Court rejects claims against the insurer we represent due to plant closures in the course of the Corona pandemic. The reasons for the judgement allow the conclusion that the enforcement of such claims against other insurers is unlikely to be considered.

V ZR 275/12

Judge. 04.04.2014

We obtain a limitation of the recoverable repair cost on behalf of the seller of real property.

V ZR 305/12

Judge. 09.05.2014

In a precedent-setting decision, the Supreme Court clarifies the far-reaching liability of the wrongful possessor in favor of the principal represented by us.

V ZR 206/14

Judge. 10.07.2015

Chancellor Kohl’s tapes: We obtain an order for turning over recordings to the recorded speaker.

V ZR 84/14

Judge. 17.07.2015

An example of our practice in the field of German reunification law.

V ZR 142/14

Judge. 04.12.2015

The decision contains important clarifications concerning the requirements for recission of real estate transactions and strengthen the position of the seller represented by us.

VI ZR 76/14

Judge. 18.11.2014

Following the appeal of the publisher represented by us, the Supreme Court lowers the requirements for reporting on suspicions and limits claims for corrections.

VI ZR 386/13

Judge. 13.01.2015

Filialleiter bei Promifriseur: The Supreme Courts decides in favor of our client that identifying subjects of truthful reports is generally legal.

VI ZR 63/14

Judge. 15.05.2015

The Supreme Court determines the basis and scope of information rights of patients that suffer from side effects of pharmaceutical products.

VI ZR 34/15

Judge. 01.03.2016

In an action brought by the doctor represented by us, the Supreme Court increases the duty of care that online review platforms for medical services have to meet.

VI ZR 310/14

Judge. 27.09.2016

Following our appeal, the Supreme Court decides that reporting on an event of general interest does not require the consent of persons pictured at the event.

VI ZR 562/15

Judge. 10.01.2017

The Supreme Court strengthens the protection of satire and grants the appeal of the broadcaster represented by us.

VI ZR 76/17

Judge. 06.02.2018

The Federal Supreme Court strengthens the freedom of the press and holds that it was legal for the publishing house represented by us to publish pictures of a former president of the Federal Republic while shopping.

VI ZR 489/16

Judge. 27.02.2018

Internetforum: In the leading case concerning the responsibilities of a search engine operator the Supreme Court decides that liability requires a notification of an obvious and clear infringement of personality rights. The Supreme Court dismisses the complaint against the search engine operator represented by us.

VI ZR 128/18

Judge. 04.12.2018

The Federal Supreme Court decides that the danger of a recurring infringement will be removed by an undertaking to a third party.

VI ZR 495/18

Judge. 14.01.2020

The Supreme Court recognises the rating presentation of one of the companies represented by us in an internet rating portal (here:www.yelp.de) as admissible.

VI ZR 208/19

Judge. 14.07.2020

The Supreme Court decides that § 34c GewO a.F. is not a protective law within the meaning of § 823 para. 2 BGB (German Civil Code) and dismisses the action against the bank we represent.

VI ZR 405/18

Judge. 27.07.2020

In this landmark decision on the prerequisites of a delisting claim against the controller of an internet search service pursuant to Art. 17 of the GDPR, we obtain dismissal of the action in favour of the search engine provider we represent.

VI ZR 445/19

Judge. 29.09.2020

We enforce the admissibility of identifying image reporting in connection with the coverage of riots on the occasion of the meeting of the group of twenty leading industrialised and emerging countries in Hamburg at the beginning of July 2017 (G20 summit).

VI ZR 73/20

Judge. 09.03.2021

In this matter, we enforce that plagiarism allegations may be reported by name.

VII ZR 103/12

Judge. 20.06.2013

We safeguard the rights of the contractor in a turnkey contract for a major office building.

VII ZR 177/13

Judge. 23.01.2014

The Supreme Court limits the applicability of the laches defense in a dispute about architect’s fees.

VII ZR 336/13

Judge. 13.03.2015

The Supreme Courts upholds the position of the agent represented by us in a dispute over contractual liability rules.

VII ZR 308/13

Judge. 21.10.2015

In a complex dispute arising out of the building of an electrical power plant, we defend the Court of Appeals interim decision on jurisdiction.

VII ZR 288/17

Judge. 11.10.2018

The Federal Supreme Court defines the requirements and legal consequenses of the seizure of internet domains. The Court follows our contention that the creditor replaces the debtor in the contractural relationship with the German domain regristry DENIC.

VII ZR 159/19

Judge. 16.07.2020

The Supreme Court decides that requiring a security due to possible claims for defects by the client, which amounts to 8% of the contract sum, unreasonably disadvantages the contractor represented by us.

VIII ZR 51/14

Judge. 21.01.2015

In a precedent-setting the decision the Supreme Court grants a claim of lost profits to the lessee whose option to buy the property was disregarded by the owner.

VIII ZR 110/14

Judge. 04.03.2015

We successfully defend the operator of an electrical grid against bonus claims brought by the operator of a gas plant.

VIII ZR 244/14

Judge. 04.11.2015

The Supreme Court supports our definition of an “installation” within the meaning of the energy law in favor of the grid operator.

VIII ZR 304/14

Judge. 18.11.2015

The Supreme Court finds in our client’s favor that the grid operator does not have to compensate the energy producer for energy supplied to the grid if the producer does not install a remote control system that allows the grid operator to shut off the energy feed.

VIII ZR 241/15

Judge. 05.12.2015

One of many cases where we have enforced the payment claims of an energy supplier in long-term contracts.

VIII ZR 197/16

Judge. 11.04.2018

In one of the numerous cases that we have litigated for energy utilities the Supreme Court decides in favour of our client concerning the compensation for the production of renewable energy.

VIII ZR 36/20

Judge. 24.02.2021

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the lessor represented by us that a leasing contract with kilometre invoicing does not meet the requirements of Section 506 (2) of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch – BGB) for other paid financing assistance in the case of contracts of use. Consequently, the lessee does not have a right of cancellation for such contracts.

VIII ZR 305/19

Judge. 18.03.2021

The Supreme Court rules in favour of the landlord represented by us in the first model declaratory action (Musterfeststellungsklage). It pronounces that a modernisation notice pursuant to Section 555c (1) BGB is admissible in terms of time if the planning has progressed so far that the content requirements of Section 555c (1) sentence 2 BGB can be met.

IX ZR 55/15

Judge. 24.09.2015

The Supreme Court finds in favor of the administrator represented by us that he can charge creditors interest if they use set-offs to obtain undue monetary advantages.

IX ZR 77/15

Judge. 04.02.2016

We succeed in obtaining an extension and clarification of the administrator’s right to claw back donations to churches.

IX ZR 132/15

Judge. 03.03.2016

The Supreme Court decides in favor of the bank represented by us on the possibility to set off claims that are contingent on the same condition.

IX ZR 314/14

Judge. 09.06.2016

While the Supreme Court reverses the lower court’s decision on technical grounds, it clarifies important issues of sec. 104 Insolvency Code and confirms our client’s damage claims.

IX ZR 250/15

Judge. 15.09.2016

We successfully defend the shareholder of GmbH against the administrator’s claims regarding alleged share purchase without consideration.

IX ZB 102/15

Judge. 04.05.2017

On appeal of the creditors represented by us, the Supreme Court overturns the lower courts’ decisions and dismisses the bankruptcy administrator.

IX ZR 92/17 und IX ZR 103/17

Judge. 08.02.2018

In two cases regarding cross border insolvencies we secure the claims of our clients in connection with the transfer of real estate before the start of the insolvency proceeding.

IX ZR 110/17

Judge. 24.01.2019

In a factually and legally complex matter we secure the rights of the bank represented by us based on complex security instruments.

IX ZR 50/17

Judge. 14.09.2019

We represent a public development bank and successfully prosecute the claim for sales proceeds and block counter claims based on the cost associated with the sale.

IX ZR 228/19

Judge. 01.12.2019

In this case, the entrepreneur we represented wanted to structure the company succession in a tax-efficient way by means of a double foundation model. In doing so, the tax advisor made a mistake, for which he nevertheless did not want to accept liability, referring to an alleged comparison of all assets. The Supreme Court rejected this objection on our appeal.

IX ZR 72/20

Judge. 06.05.2021

With this landmark decision, the Supreme Court readjusts the prerequisites of a challenge with intent in favour of our client. According to this decision, the assumption of the subjective prerequisites for a challenge with intent cannot be based solely on the assumption that the debtor was known to be insolvent at the time of the challenged legal act.

X ZB 1/15

Judge. 30.06.2015

Flugzeugzustand: We obtain a decision in favor of the patentee concerning the patentability of inventions based on mathematical methods.

X ZR 98/13

Judge. 08.12.2015

In one of its rare decisions concerning agricultural estates, the Supreme Court clarifies the rules of default in transfer contracts.

X ZR 76/14

Judge. 23.08.2016

V-förmige Führungsanordnung: Following our client’s appeal, the Supreme Court limits the defense of intentional choice against claims of equivalent infringement.

X ZR 124/15

Judge. 27.09.2016

Rezeptortyrosinkinase II: In a precedent-setting decision, the Supreme Court refuses to extend the protection of products obtained by patented processes to the data generated by genetic testing.

X ZB 2/17

Judge. 11.07.2017

Raltegravir: In a fundamental decision the Federal Supreme Court for the first time sustains a claim for the granting of a compulsory patent license in favour of the pharmaceutical company represented by us.

X ZR 59/17

Judge. 16.04.2019

Fulvestrant: In one of the numerous patent nullity appeals conducted by us we successfully defend the patent ownes by our client, a pharmaceutical company. The Federal Supreme Court clarifies fundamental rules for determining inventive step in the context of systematic pharmaceutical research.

X ZR 95/18

Judge. 14.05.2019

Schutzverkleidung: The Federal Supreme Court clarifies fundamental issues in the context of prior use and approves a Court of Appeals Judgement in favour of our client.

XI ZR 100/13

Judge. 15.07.2014

We successfully defend the issuer of index-linked notes against damage claims.

XI ZR 278/14

Judge. 24.03.2015

The Supreme Court holds that damage claims based on alleged breaches of a provider of financial services represented by us the duty to advise come into existence at the time of the purchase based on faulty advice.

XI ZR 454/14

Judge. 16.02.2016

The Supreme Court accepts clauses that contain additional fees for premature termination and the administrative handling of credit agreements used by the savings and loan organization represented by us.

XI ZR 114/15

Judge. 26.04.2016

The Supreme Court supports our position that the knowledge of an employee cannot be imputed to a bank if the employee obtained the knowledge in his capacity as a member of a supervisory board and was bound to confidentiality.

XI ZR 76/14

Judge. 14.06.2016

The Supreme Court clarifies the elements of an obvious abuse of a power of attorney, upholding the position of the commercial bank represented by us.

XI ZR 171/19

Judge. 17.09.2019

In these proceedings, the Supreme Court establishes minimum standards for consumer protection institutions and dismisses the model declaratory action against the credit institution we represent.

XI ZB 35/18

Judge. 19.01.2021

We dispute the landmark decision that the special statutory prospectus liability pursuant to § 13 VerkProspG, §§ 44 et seq. BörsG in the version applicable until 31 May 2012 exclude in their scope of application a liability of the founding shareholders as prospectus initiators under the aspect of a pre-contractual breach of duty due to the use of an incorrect, incomplete or misleading prospectus as a means of written information pursuant to section 280 para. 1 BGB in conjunction with section 311 para. 2 BGB. § Section 311 (2) BGB.

XII ZR 46/13

Judge. 04.03.2015

The Supreme Court clarifies the rules governing compensation claims between family members, in particular for construction work performed on a house owned by the parents in law.

XII ZR 183/13

Judge. 17.02.2016

We succeed in transferring the property tax burden to the owner in al long-term commercial rental agreement.

XII ZR 147/14

Judge. 11.05.2016

The Supreme Court finds in favor of the advertising association in a shopping center, upholding the payment obligations of a lessee independent of the validity of the agreement.

XII ZR 50/14

Judge. 05.12.2016

We successfully defend our client against claims on a contract for providing care for horses.

XII ZR 76/17

Judge. 18.04.2018

We represent the city of Frankfurt in a dispute about the former horse racing arena and secure the removal of the former tent to allow the construction of the German Football Associations new trainings center.

XII ZR 52/18

Judge. 04.09.2019

We defend our client, an investor that had purchased a shopping center from the trustee in bankruptcy of the former landlord against claims of unjustified termination of the lease and secure a claim for removal of the added structures.

XII ZR 29/20

Judge. 03.02.2021

For a competitor of Deutsche Bahn, we pave the way for the enforcement of claims for damages in the event of the non-contractual provision of railway lines.

EnZR 70/14

Judge. 15.12.2015

Singulär genutzte Betriebsmittel: The Supreme Court supports the energy user under certain conditions has a claim against the grid operator for a retroactive modification of the energy tariff for energy consumed by appliances exclusively used.

KZR 41/14

Judge. 26.01.2016

Jaguar-Vertragswerkstatt: We achieve a definition for the resource market for repair services that is different from the truck market.

KZR 30/14

Judge. 12.04.2016

NetCologne: the Supreme Court clarifies fundamental antitrust questions in the relationship between cable networks and content providers.

KZR 25/14

Judge. 12.07.2016

Lottoblock II: In one of the first decisions concerning follow-on damage claims the Supreme Court sustains the position of the plaintiff represented by us.

KZR 2/15

Judge. 24.01.2017

Upon appeal of our client the Supreme Court overturns the judgement of the Court of Appeals and decides fundamental questions of antitrust law on the abuse of market power.

KZR 26/17

Judge. 11.12.2018

Schienenkartell: On appeal of the defendant represented by us the Federal Supreme Court clarifies that in the field of cartel damage claims no proof by prima facie evidence is available. The Court strengthens the procedural right of defendants in such proceedings.

KZR 73/17

Judge. 08.10.2019

Werbeblocker III: Following the appeal of the private TV company represented by us the antitrust senate oft he Federal Supreme Court vacates the judgement of the Court of Appeals that had dismissed our clients complaint. This clarified that so-called „Advertising Blockers“ can infringe antitrust law as abuses of dominant market positions.

EnZR 99/18

Judge. 28.01.2020

In the landmark decision “Gasnetz Leipzig” we represent the winning municipal utility.

KZR 35/19

Judge. 23.09.2020

With the decision “LKW-Kartell I”, we succeed in having our client’s conviction to pay damages set aside on the merits.

KZR 23/18

Judge. 14.12.2021

In the decision “Kabelkanalanlagen II”, the Supreme Court lays the foundation for the adjustment of a contractually agreed fee for the use of cable duct systems.

THINKING LITIGATION.

Rohnke Winter

THINKING LITIGATION.

Thinking · Again

Keep · Thinking

Thinking · Together

Thinking · differently

Thinking · Ahead

Thinking · Across

Thinking · Deeply

THINKING · THROUGH

LAWYERS

PROF. DR. CHRISTIAN ROHNKE

DR. THOMAS WINTER

REPUTATION

"Surprisingly, Rohnke Winter (...), were even able to slightly increase their market share."

"BGH lawyers: Rohnke Winter claim the top of the recommendation list".

"For the second time, the BGH law firm Rohnke & Winter leads the JUVE BGH Lawyers Ranking - with a growing lead."

"BGH law firms: Rohnke Winter extends top position in JUVE ranking".

Prof. Dr. Christian Rohnke

dr. Thomas Winter

A selection of our cases

II ZR 312/19

Judgement: 23.11.2021

I ZB 21/21

Judgement: 9.12.2021

IV ZR 144/21

Judgement: 26.1.2022

Verzeichnis nach Senaten

I ZR 153/14

I ZR 153/14

I ZB 3/14

I ZR 75/14

I ZR 36/14

I ZR 253/14

I ZB 52/15

I ZR 110/16

I ZR 71/17

I ZR 167/17

I ZR 228/15

ZR 113/20

I ZB 21/21

I ZB 88/19

II ZR 250/12

II ZB 29/12

II ZR 384/13

II ZR 275/14

II ZR 121/15

II ZR 255/16

II ZR 175/18

II ZR 355/18

II ZR 312/19

II ZR 215/20

II ZR 181/21

III ZB 63/10

III ZR 33/14

III ZR 51/13

III ZR 4/15

III ZR 126/15

III ZR 565/16

III ZR 42/19

III ZR 175/19

III ZR 194/19

IV ZR 31/14

IV ZR 342/15

IV ZR 238/15

IV ZR 527/15

IV ZR 437/15

VI ZR 495/18

IV ZR 144/21

IV ZR 144/21

V ZR 275/12

V ZR 305/12

V ZR 206/14

V ZR 84/14

V ZR 142/14

VI ZR 76/14

VI ZR 386/13

VI ZR 63/14

VI ZR 34/15