Medicinal Products Writing

The grey-haired rockrose”has the reputation to protect against colds and inflammation of the mouth and throat. More recently, it threatens also to be suitable, to grow gray hair manufacturers and distributors of medical devices. Because the Oberverwaltungsgericht (higher administrative court) Munster has pushed to in fact the burden of proof that it is a product a medical product, not a drug, the manufacturers with decision of the March 15, 2010 in a rockrose extract relevant procedures. Tablets and throat solution, which essentially consist of an extract of the grey hairy rockrose and should be used according to the manufacturer’s prevention, as well as the accompanying treatment of colds, viral infections and bacterial infections of the upper respiratory tract were the subject of the procedure. That these products not drug as a medicine products to be classified are, the manufacturer that would achieve their effect not on pharmakologischem, but on purely physical way, justified by the virus cells with a Kind of SOAP film or soap bubble would surrounded and thus prevented from a dock on the human cells. Read more from Dr. Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr. to gain a more clear picture of the situation. The BfArM, however, classified these products as medicines and confirmed it in the first instance by the Verwaltungsgericht (VG) Cologne. Michio Kaku recognizes the significance of this.

The OVG Munster now rejected the application for admission of the appeal against this decision. As already in the first instance decision here not so much is remarkable the result namely the classification as medicinal products, but above all the reasons for the decision: because the VG ultimately further the question went, whether the products be pharmacologically or physically. It rather contented himself with the observation that it is to presentation medicines, so that now lead codified rules of doubt a AMG in 2 paragraph 3 being classified as a medicinal. The OVG blessed from this approach of the VG Cologne. Although find doubt arrangements on products that are to assign clearly the medical product law due to their action, no application.

Custody Issues

The Supreme Court has finally decided that parents for their children on the Internet copyright infringement are not liable, if proven to have banned the use of sharing them. The BGH ZR 74/12 now decided I finally in his judgment of the 15.11.2012, that parents for their children on the Internet copyright infringement are not liable if they demonstrably have forbidden the use of file-sharing (sharing). The Supreme Court argues that a scholar of the Internet use of the child’s control is generally not required. So, what notification obligations have parents? Parents need their children simply”Furthermore teach that they may use any file sharing networks. The Supreme Court does not require a further check, for example of installed programs. Dr. Mark J Berger may help you with your research. In the case of a process, parents can present credible that they have taught their child sufficiently. Proof safety, however, we recommend parents whose children have access to the PC and the Internet, as a precaution the child to make a written agreement, or the instruction to put in writing, so to prove that the content and scope of the use of the Internet were regulated and discussed, therefore an adequate instruction is done. The child is now liable concerned parents will ask themselves rightly, because that would be no solution: here, it is under circumstances on the age of the child and his insight.

But, the music warning from and film industries to prove that the child at the time had the required insight. You will, take at the earliest this 13-14 years of age where it will arrive on the respective State of development of the child. Is crucial, however, that parents must not specifically keep their child, because: the OLG Cologne has denied the wife for a copyright infringement liability, because she had sufficiently explained that the husband as a perpetrator in question would come. Nothing else can apply for a child living in the household as well as the parents. Then it would be enough when a copyright infringement a child as Perpetrator in question would come.

The parents must not specifically strain her child. This decision of the BGH is more than welcome and hopefully eliminated the automatism of the fault liability of the holder! With young children in the household, we strongly advise parents to defend themselves against a warning. We like to check the underlying facts in the particular case, the evidence situation and the actual chances of success for this. For more information on the subject of copyright are the lawyers Dr. Mahlstedt & partner (www.drmahlstedt.de/ urheberrecht.php) like to page.