Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group (CFI, 5 August 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 5 August 2024 (UPC_CFI_452/2023, ACT_589655/2023, App_28993/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release to Ortovox Sportartikel of the EUR 500,000 deposit on which enforcement had been made conditional when provisional measures were granted without hearing the defendants, Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH, on 11 December 2023 on the basis of EP 3 466 498. Ortovox had replaced the deposit with a bank guarantee. Payment is to be made only once the time for panel review under Rule 333.2 RoP has expired.

Question

May an applicant that has made a cash deposit replace it with a bank guarantee and recover the deposit, despite the defendants’ objection?

Decision

Release under Rule 352.2 RoP is discretionary and is considered where the reason for the security has fallen away. Where the applicant could choose between a deposit and a bank guarantee, later providing a guarantee creates double security that may justify release, although the choice cannot be exercised repeatedly (I). Choosing a deposit first, to enforce quickly, was legitimate (II). The guarantee covers damage caused by enforcement within Rules 211.5, 213.2 and 354.2 RoP, its validity is governed by the applicable law, here German suretyship law, and the defendants’ express acceptance is not required (III).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a deposit made to enforce provisional measures without delay may later be replaced by a bank guarantee covering enforcement damage, freeing up the applicant’s cash.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 211.5, 213.2, 333.2, 352.2 and 354.2

Other provisions

Registry Rules, Rule 45, German Civil Code (BGB), § 765 et seq.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.