Professional designation "diplomiert" without university diploma — compatible with competition law?

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) had to decide whether a dyslexia and dyscalculia trainer may describe herself as "diplomiert" (qualified), even though she had not acquired a corresponding university diploma, or whether this designation would mislead the public.

A trainer active in the field of educational further training used the designation "Diplomierte Legasthenie- und Dyskalkulie-Trainerin" (Qualified Dyslexia and Dyscalculia Trainer). The trainer had no university degree. A competitor saw this as a violation of competition law because the addition "diplomiert" would mislead the public in the same manner as the designation "Dipl. Legasthenie- und Dyskalkulie-Trainerin" into believing that she or a person working for her possessed a corresponding academic qualification. The lower courts also took this view and ordered the trainer to cease and desist accordingly.

Court ruling

The revision proceedings instituted against this before the BGH were successful. In this case, the court permits the use of the designation "diplomiert". In its judgment of 18.09.2013 – Az. I ZR 65/12 – it justifies its view on the grounds that the adjectival form "diplomiert" in Germany does not indicate that a person is entitled to hold the academic degree "Diplom".

Accordingly, the use of the designation "diplomiert" in a context in which the public might expect the use of the term "Diplom" or the abbreviation "Dipl.", depending on the circumstances, tends rather not to indicate the presence of such a qualification, but on the contrary to indicate its absence.

Conclusion

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) leaves open why the relevant public, when educators use the designation "diplomiert", should not assume a title acquired in the context of a university degree. The BGH could very well have decided this matter differently and with very good reasons. As long as the relevant public is misled by an academically-sounding designation, this remains contrary to competition law. In the present case, according to the BGH's view, this was not the case.