The court considered that, with respect to statements related to a competitor (or the goods or services offered by such competitor) in the context of marketing, it is possible to intervene when incorrect statements are made, or when statements are made that are correct, but are made in such a way that they unnecessarily discredit the competitor.
The court found the statements in the defendant's letters to be very negative, in particular because it was stated that information was "stolen" by the competitor and that the conduct of the competitor definitely consisted of a "serious delinquent behavior".
The court stated that the content of the letters created the impression that the plaintiff was a company that conducted dishonest business, while the defendant could not prove that there were grounds for such serious and far-reaching accusations. The statements set forth in the letters were therefore considered misleading and discrediting. As the letters would appreciably affect a recipient's ability to make an informed transactional decision, the court deemed the representations to be unfair.