Der immaterialgüterrechtliche Vernichtungsanspruch – Versuch einer Zivilisierung

An intellectual property right holder's claim for destruction of infringing goods or materials and implements principally used for the manufacture of those goods (cf. Article 10 (1) c) 2004/48/EC) has to this day not been systematized according to the general principles of private law. It has developed into a claim sui generis that oscillates between a civil remedial right and a punitive instrument. It is however possible to bring the claim for destruction in accordance with the general theory of civil secondary rights. The claim for destruction realizes the intellectual property right that has due to its vulnerability by law been equipped with a »security perimeter«. This security perimeter is breached by the goods to be destroyed because they threaten to infringe the intellectual property right, should the possessor and/ or the proprietor of the goods intend future infringements. The existence of the threat itself is declared to already be a present infringement of the intellectual property right and the concept of the claim for destruction as a punitive instrument becomes obsolete. In accordance with the traditional liberal distinction between private and public law that has dominated continental European or at least German legal culture, the general public's desire for punishment has to be served by criminal/public law. The civil claim for destruction can only be granted as far as it is necessary to prevent future infringements that threaten to be executed specifically with the goods or materials and implements to be destructed. It is not a valid instrument to punish infringements that have occurred in the past. Therefore a claim for destruction ceases to exist once the period of protection of the intellectual property right has ended. The breach of the security perimeter can other than by way of destruction also be remedied by depositing the goods or materials and implements until the end of the period of protection at the expense of the infringer. With regard to the goods that have to be destructed the civil claim for destruction cannot be combined with a claim for damages (cf. Article 13 (1) 2004/48/EC) demanding royalties the infringer would have had to pay or demanding a profit the infringer actually didn't make due to the destruction. Der immaterialgüterrechtliche Vernichtungsanspruch hat sich im Laufe der geschichtlichen Entwicklung positionenübergreifend durchgesetzt und sich im Kanon immaterialgüterrechtlicher Schutzbehelfe fest etabliert. Die Legitimität des Vernichtungsanspruchs wird trotz seiner möglichen drastischen Auswirkungen auf Rechte Dritter nicht mehr in Frage gestellt, obwohl eine befriedigende Verankerung im allgemeinen Vermögensrecht bis heute noch nicht vollumfassend gelungen ist. Die Suche nach dem Fundament des Vernichtungsanspruchs ist dabei nicht nur aus Legitimitäts-, sondern auch aus Praktikabilitätsgründen unerlässlich. Die Vernichtungstatbestände sind mit erheblichen Auslegungsschwierigkeiten verbunden und stehen zudem unter dem unbestimmten Vorbehalt der Verhältnismäßigkeit.