Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62008CN0278

    Case C-278/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 26 June 2008 — Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH v Günter Guni and trekking.at Reisen GmbH

    OJ C 223, 30.8.2008, p. 30–30 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    30.8.2008   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 223/30

    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 26 June 2008 — Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH v Günter Guni and trekking.at Reisen GmbH

    (Case C-278/08)

    (2008/C 223/46)

    Language of the case: German

    Referring court

    Oberster Gerichtshof

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH

    Defendants: Günter Guni and trekking.at Reisen GmbH

    Questions referred

    1.

    Must Article 5(1) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (‘Directive 89/104’) (1) be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark is used in a manner reserved for the proprietor of the trade mark if the trade mark or a sign similar to it (such as the word component of a word and figurative trade mark) is reserved as a keyword with a search engine operator and advertising for identical or similar goods or services therefore appears on the screen when the trade mark or the sign similar to it is entered as a search term?

    2.

    If the answer to Question 1 is yes:

    (A)

    Is the trade mark proprietor's exclusive right infringed by the utilisation of a search term identical with the trade mark for an advertisement for identical goods or services, regardless of whether the accessed advertisement appears in the list of hits or in a separate advertising block and whether it is marked as a ‘sponsored link’?

    (B)

    In respect of the utilisation of a sign identical with the trade mark for similar goods or services, or the utilisation of a sign similar to the trade mark for identical or similar goods or services, is the fact that the advertisement is marked as a ‘sponsored link’ and/or appears not in the list of hits but in a separate advertising block sufficient to exclude any likelihood of confusion?

    (1)   OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.

    Top