Bestun claimed that it was the sole owner of the Facebook Page and the Instagram Account. According to the District Court, the right to the Facebook Page and/or the Instagram Account must be regarded as a separate issue to ownership of the Trademark; ownership of the Trademark did not automatically entail ownership of the Facebook Page and Instagram Account. The District Court stated that general property law principles must be considered when assessing the question. Thus, the initial registration of the Facebook Page and Instagram Account form a central starting point when considering the ownership. Additionally, subsequent circumstances must also be taken into consideration.
The District Court referenced a judgment from the Court of Appeals, recalling the importance of social media platforms for marketing and that popularity on social media can be complex and require time and resources. In principle, the clientele and followers built up over the years in a marketing channel must still belong to the person who established, paid for, and maintained the channel, even though some success is built on brands no longer offered. A distributor cannot be blamed for the continued use of such channels to market new products if there are no agreements with the original distributor. Whether the further use is legally acceptable will depend on the content and if the audience has been informed that the products that have previously been marketed, and may have caused "likes", are no longer offered.
The District Court found it probable that party B had set up the Facebook Page and that the content, to some degree, required the consent of the Trademark owner. These circumstances meant that Bestun either was the sole owner of the Facebook Page or the co-owner of the Facebook Page. Party A's work on the Facebook Page was considered to have been conducted on behalf of Box Fresh. Thus, the District Court stated that the Facebook Page was owned jointly by Box Fresh and Bestun, not party A personally. However, as the parties had not claimed that Box Fresh was a co-owner of the Facebook Page, Bestun had to be considered the sole owner of the Facebook Page.
Additionally, given that Box Fresh had been dissolved and had not transferred the right to the Facebook Page, Box Fresh's right to the Facebook Page would accrue to Bestun as the corresponding co-owner of the Facebook Page. Therefore, Bestun had the right to demand that the Facebook Page be transferred to Bestun by virtue of its ownership.
As for the Instagram Account, the District Court found that party A had established and maintained the account. This had not accumulated any costs. The District Court did not find the differences between the Instagram Account and the Facebook Page decisive. Thus, the assessment with respect to the Instagram Account coincided with the assessment regarding the Facebook Page. Consequently, the District Court concluded that Bestun had the right to the Instagram Account and the Facebook Page.