MenoGlück
inadmissible
Health Claim.
MenoGlück
inadmissible
Health Claim.
from
When does a creative product name become a prohibited health claim? Can companies still stop a competitor months later in summary proceedings if the advertising on its website was already known from earlier proceedings?
What is it all about?
In the highly competitive market for dietary supplements, suppliers often advertise with the promise of greater well-being. However, those who lay it on too thick or are tactical in the legal prosecution of infringements run the risk of shipwreck in court. A case before the Cologne Higher Regional Court illustrates the narrow limits for health promises and the procedural pitfalls in competition law.
A company that sells dietary supplements sued a direct competitor for various advertisements on the internet. The focus was on statements about vitamin B complexes and choline as well as the striking product name “MenoGlück” for a dietary supplement. While the Cologne Regional Court initially upheld all prohibitions, the competitor in question appealed – with partial success.
The decision of the OLG Cologne
In his Judgment of 16.01.2026 – Ref. 6 U 78/25 the court clearly differentiated between the substantive infringement and the procedural urgency.
The ban on “MenoGlück”
The court confirmed the ban on the term “MenoGlück”. It ruled that this was not merely a “flowery” advertising term, but an inadmissible health claim. The name suggests that menopause is optimized by the product (“Menopause in Happiness”), which goes beyond the scientifically approved effects of the ingredients. As the product name was not accompanied by a specific approved health value, the advertising was in breach of the Health Claims Regulation.
The loss of urgency with “salami tactics”
Interestingly, the Cologne Higher Regional Court lifted the bans on the statements “CHOLIN: THE CLASSIC FOR YOUR LIFE” and “VITAMIN B COMPLEX”. However, the reason for this was not the legality of the advertising, but a lack of urgency. The competitor had already attacked the competitor a year earlier because of other statements on the same website. As the newly contested sentences were in the immediate vicinity of the ones that had been contested at the time, the competitor should have noticed them at the time. If you wait too long, you lose the right to fast-track summary proceedings.
Urgency may not apply if an advertising statement on a website is challenged that has already been the subject of legal proceedings in the past, if the statement challenged at the time is in the immediate vicinity of the statement now being challenged.
Conclusion
The ruling shows that product names for foods that suggest health claims are in breach of the Health Claims Regulation.
The comments on urgency are interesting. If there are several infringements in close proximity on the same website, pursuing the infringements in different cease and desist letters one after the other can constitute a “salami tactic” that is detrimental to urgency.
We are happy to
advise you about
Competition law!
