In the above matter I am pointing out to be legally representing Mr
. Snitlev. The proper authorization is thereby legally assured. On behalf and authorization from Mr
. Snitlev I am demanding that you submit your original power of attorney. The possibility of an appropriate application of paragraph 174 BGB is referenced (comparison OLG Düsseldorf GRUR-RR 2001,286).
. Snitlev was not able to make the disputed file ‘nameofthefile’
available on the Internet because to Mr
. Snitlev’s knowledge this file was never located on his PC. Also, to Mr
. Snitlev’s knowledge this file was never made available through his connection by a third party.
If you are in possession of records which you believe to be provable, that in fact through Mr
. Snitlev’s connection the above mentioned file was made available, we are asking to be notified and given access.
We are demanding that you verify that Mr
. Snitlev is eligible to be charged for your Letter of Notice concerning the mentioned product. In the event that Mr
. Snitlev believes that he can derive this right from an assigned right, we are asking for a proof that the assignee is the creator of the aforementioned product.
I am pointing out that Mr
. Snitlev is willing, in order to avoid costs connected to the only summary-wise examination and according to his current legal protection (rights), to issue an explanation pertaining his failure to comply with stated demands, as soon as your original power of attorney is submitted.
In addition, I am pointing out that Mr
. Snitlev is interested in an extra-judicial settling of this matter.
According to the paragraph 97a II UrbG, in any case only 100 EUR of legal costs can be asserted.
It would be collegial to ask for a deadline extension considering the issuing of explanation.
I will be returning to the matter unprompted.
With best collegial regards