(i) the other company’s trademark is used to refer solely to own products; and
(ii) is so perceived by the customer. 

Recently the Federal Supreme Court ruled to this effect (judgment of 15th July 2004 – ZR 37/01).  The Federal Supreme Court held admissible a tyre manufacturer’s advertising material featuring a Porsche car equipped with the tyre manufacturer’s tyres. According to the Federal Supreme Court, it is, in principle, admissible to present a product in its usual context. As long as the advertiser endeavours to avoid the risk of misinterpretation or deception, he may refer to another company’s trademark. The risk of misinterpretation will always be excluded if the addressees are clear that the product in question stems from a different company which has nothing to do with the advertiser. In addition, claims under competition law would not be applicable.

Further, there would be no case for inadmissible comparative advertising (section 6 of the Unfair Competition Act, Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb - “UWG”) should two similar products not be juxtaposed. There will also be no case for unfair exploitation of good name if there is good reason for referring to another company’s product. In any event, reference may be made to the main product in the case of accessories and spare parts insofar as this is required to ensure full consumer information.