In its judgment of 3 March 2026 (Az. 16 O 75/25, case no. 16 O 75/25), Landgericht Bochum (Bochum Regional Court) addressed the question of whether the information obligations under the European General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR) also apply to biocidal products offered through distance sales. The case focused on retailers’ obligation to provide not only the manufacturer’s name but also its postal address and email address in the online offer.
In this first-instance decision, for which no information on finality is available here, the court affirmed the applicability of the GPSR and upheld a claim for injunctive relief under competition law. It also commented on the information obligations relating to food supplements and the requirements for an effective waiver of competition law claims.
Food Supplements and Repellents
The defendant, a pharmacist, sold various products through a website, including food supplements and repellents. An association registered as a qualified trade association objected to the way the products were presented in the online shop.
In its view, the advertised products lacked the manufacturer information required under Art. 19 of Regulation (EU) 2023/988 on general product safety (General Product Safety Regulation – GPSR). Although the names of the respective manufacturers were provided, their postal addresses and email addresses were not.
Incomplete Manufacturer Details
By letter dated 21 May 2025, the association therefore issued the pharmacist with a formal warning and demanded, among other things, that he provide a cease-and-desist undertaking subject to a contractual penalty. The defendant subsequently provided a partial cease-and-desist undertaking and reimbursed the costs of the warning. However, the undertaking did not cover all of the conduct at issue.
The association then brought an action seeking to prohibit the defendant from advertising two repellents through distance sales without complete manufacturer details. The specific products are anonymised below as “Repellent A” and “Repellent B”.
The defendant argued in particular that biocidal products were governed by the more specific European Biocidal Products Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 528/2012). In his view, it contained a separate protection and information framework, meaning that the GPSR did not apply in parallel.
The defendant also filed a counterclaim. He sought a declaration that, in relation to a food supplement also advertised by him (“Product C”), he was not required to provide the manufacturer details specified in Art. 19 GPSR.
After Landgericht Bochum initially dismissed the action by default judgment dated 6 January 2026, the claimant lodged an objection. The dispute was subsequently decided again.
Landgericht Bochum Upholds the Claim
Landgericht Bochum upheld the action and set aside the preceding default judgment; based on the information currently available, there is no evidence that the decision is final, meaning that an appeal may still be filed. The defendant was ordered, on pain of a coercive fine of up to EUR 250,000 or, alternatively, coercive detention, to refrain, in the course of trade, from advertising the two repellents through distance sales without providing the respective manufacturer’s postal address and email address as required by the GPSR, where this occurs in the specific manner challenged.
The court also found that the relief sought in the counterclaim concerning the food supplement had become moot; there is no evidence that the judgment of Landgericht Bochum has since become final, meaning that legal remedies against the decision may still be available.
The decision therefore contains two key findings: first, the information obligations under Art. 19 GPSR must also be observed for the biocidal products at issue. Second, as food products, food supplements do not fall within the scope of the GPSR.
Applicability of the GPSR to Biocidal Products
The court based the claim for injunctive relief on §§ 5a, 5b and 8 UWG (German Act Against Unfair Competition) in conjunction with Art. 19 GPSR.
The GPSR has applied since 13 December 2024. Under Art. 19 GPSR, economic operators must provide certain information directly and clearly visibly in the product listing for distance sales offers. This includes, in particular, the manufacturer’s name or trade mark as well as its postal address and email address. Where applicable, the corresponding details of the responsible economic operator or importer must also be provided. In addition, information identifying the product and product-specific warnings and safety information must be made available.
For practical purposes, this results in four elements that every distance sales offer must contain:
-
first, the manufacturer’s name, registered trade name or trade mark, together with its postal address and email address,
-
second, for manufacturers established outside the European Union, the corresponding contact details of the responsible person or responsible economic operator in the EU,
-
third, information identifying the product, including an image, the type and any batch or serial number, and
-
fourth, product-specific warnings and safety information.
As the defendant, in his capacity as a retailer, was an economic operator within the meaning of the GPSR and it was undisputed that the manufacturers’ addresses and email addresses were missing, the chamber found that Art. 19 GPSR had been infringed.
Does the Biocidal Products Regulation Preclude Application of the GPSR?
The decisive question was whether the Biocidal Products Regulation, as the more specific legislation, precluded application of the GPSR.
The defendant had argued that the Biocidal Products Regulation contained a comprehensive protection framework to safeguard human and animal health and protect the environment. It therefore pursued the same objectives as the GPSR. According to Art. 2(1) GPSR, the latter’s application was consequently excluded.
Landgericht Bochum did not accept this argument.
It relied in particular on the third sentence of Art. 2(1) GPSR. Under that provision, certain rules of the GPSR are expressly excluded for products subject to specific requirements imposed by Union harmonisation legislation. However, Art. 19 GPSR is not among the provisions covered by that exclusion.
The chamber concluded from this that the information obligations under Art. 19 GPSR also apply to products governed by specific EU legislation. The Biocidal Products Regulation therefore could not entirely displace the GPSR.
Court Finds Biocidal Products Regulation Insufficient
The court also found that the Biocidal Products Regulation did not contain adequate substantive rules in this regard. Although it includes information obligations, particularly concerning the authorisation and labelling of biocidal products, it does not require retailers to state the manufacturer’s postal address and email address directly in the product listing for distance sales offers.
It is precisely this information obligation that is regulated separately by Art. 19 GPSR. The Biocidal Products Regulation does not contain an equivalent requirement in this respect.
Relevance of the Infringement Under Competition Law
The court also classified the omission of the information as a failure to disclose information that was relevant under competition law.
The information required under Art. 19 GPSR constituted material information within the meaning of § 5b(4) UWG. Consumers had to be able to contact the manufacturer directly in the event of questions or problems.
As the information was missing from the specific offer, the court held that material information had been withheld. The infringement therefore gave rise to a claim for injunctive relief under § 8 UWG.
The fact that the defendant had added the missing information after receiving the formal warning did not alter this conclusion. In the view of Landgericht Bochum, the competition law infringement already committed gave rise to a risk of repetition; this assessment derives from the first-instance decision, for which there is currently no evidence of finality. The partial cease-and-desist undertaking provided was insufficient to eliminate that risk.
Special Status of Food Supplements
Another important finding concerns the advertising of food supplements.
Landgericht Bochum clarified that the GPSR does not apply to food products. Under § 1(1) Nahrungsergänzungsmittelverordnung (German Food Supplements Regulation), food supplements are food products. They therefore fall within the exception in Art. 2(2)(b) GPSR.
The association’s original claim for injunctive relief concerning Product C was therefore unfounded from the outset.
However, the association did not expressly waive that claim until the court proceedings were underway. In the court’s view, the prior out-of-court correspondence was insufficient to demonstrate unequivocally that the claim had been abandoned with final effect.
Until the express waiver, the defendant therefore retained a legitimate interest in obtaining a declaration in his negative declaratory action. The court consequently found that the counterclaim had become moot.
Practical Significance
The judgment illustrates that the GPSR may establish independent information obligations alongside existing product-specific rules. Retailers of biocidal products in particular should therefore review their online offers and ensure that the manufacturer information required under Art. 19 GPSR is presented completely and clearly visibly.
Merely stating the manufacturer’s name is not sufficient. As a general rule, its postal address and email address are also required. Nor is it sufficient for the relevant information to be available elsewhere if it does not appear in the distance sales offer in the prescribed manner.
At the same time, the decision shows that the scope of the GPSR must be carefully determined by reference to the relevant product category. While the biocidal products in the present case are subject to the information obligations under Art. 19 GPSR, food products, including food supplements, are expressly excluded from its scope.
Companies, investors and market participants with questions about whether product-related claims comply with competition law or about the interpretation of EU law requirements can obtain comprehensive advice from MTR Legal. More information is available under Competition Law Advice.
