• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees’ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Clara Elinor Grünewald
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

BGH ruling against Amazon: linking brands to third-parties misleading

25. July 2019

An Internet commerce platform such as Amazon may not use a brand for linked Google ads as part of a Google search that misleadly displays not only the products of those brands but also third-party products. German bag manufacturer Ortlieb wins against Amazon with today’s decision of the BGH.

Ortlieb versus Amazon

Google ads with brand Ortlieb

Ortlieb challenged the fact that, when entering the search terms “Ortlieb bicycle bag”, “Ortlieb luggage bag” and “Ortlieb outlet” in the Google search function, advertisements using the sign “Ortlieb” appear, which are directly linked to lists of offers on www.amazon.de If you follow this link, Ortlieb products as well as products from other manufacturers will be displayed on Amazon. Moreover, Ortlieb itself does not offer any products via the platform “amazon.de”, which distinguishes this case from last year’s Birkenstock case.

Last year: Birkenstock versus Amazon

Last year, the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court had ruled in the comparable Birkenstock versus Amazon case that the trademark could only be infringed if the displayed hits could give the incorrect impression that the product originated from the trademark owner. However, this is not the case if the branded product is displayed – this does not change due to the additional display by third-parties.

Function as an indication of origin impaired

In the Ortlieb versus Amazon case, the Munich Regional Court had upheld the action brought by the German plaintiff (LG München, 12 January 2017, 17 HK O 22589/15) and the subsequent Court of Appeal had also ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction against the defendants pursuant to § 14 (2) No. 1, (5) German MarkenG. Amazon did use the sign “ORTLIEB”. However, the function of the trade mark as an indication of origin is affected by the display by third parties of the expected and announced offers of the trade mark products.

BGH regards linking to third-party providers as misleading

The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the judgments of the lower courts with its ruling today. The BGH ruled that the use of the Ortlieb trademark in the advertisements in question linked to Amazon was misleading. In such a case, a trade mark proprietor may oppose the use of his trade mark in an ad for a Google search.

If, however, the legitimate interests of the trademark owner were safeguarded, a retailer such as Amazon could certainly offer competing products in addition to the brand manufacturer’s products and also use the trademark in advertising for this product range, the BGH clarified.

The decisive factor in this case is that, because of the specific design of the advertisement, the trade mark was used misleadingly in the advertisements, so that customers were also led to third party offers by the advertising effect of the trade mark exploited in this way. The design of the advertisements does not give the public any reason to believe that it is being presented with an overview of offers in which, without separate identification, offers from other manufacturers are included on an equal footing with Ortlieb products.

Not only is there no separate identification, but the abbreviated addresses of the linked Internet pages under the text of the advertisements even suggest that only Ortlieb branded products are displayed, e.g. www.amazon.de/ortlieb+fahrradtasche.

The Federal Supreme Court therefore ruled that Amazon committed a trademark infringement against Ortlieb and was liable pursuant to §14 (7) MarkenG. The applicant Ortlieb is thus entitled to an injunction.

Do you also see your trademark rights or your brand threatened and misused?

Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

 

Sources:

Todays judgement of BGH Ortlieb II – I ZR 29/18 (in German)

Image:

geralt / pixabay.com / CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconbrand,  BGH,  judgement,  injunctive relief,  Trademark,  brand protection,  Federal Supreme Court,  Amazon,  misleading advertising,  Ortlieb,  misleading,  omission,  trading,  linked advertising,  Google advertising,  Google search,  Internettrading,  Internet commerce,  display by third-parties

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Trademark Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law
This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Recent Posts

  • Bacardi wins in trademark dispute Vodka 42 BELOW 20. January 2021
  • HALLOUMI vs. BBQLOUMI: Cyprus loses again in trademark dispute 20. January 2021
  • Short word marks and similarity: First letter is not everything 19. January 2021
  • Where in Europe is a patent application worthwhile? 18. January 2021

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

20. January 2021
Bacardi wins in trademark dispute Vodka 42 BELOW

Bacardi wins in trademark dispute Vodka 42 BELOW

20. January 2021
HALLOUMI vs. BBQLOUMI: Cyprus loses again in trademark dispute

HALLOUMI vs. BBQLOUMI: Cyprus loses again in trademark dispute

19. January 2021
Short word marks and similarity: First letter is not everything

Short word marks and similarity: First letter is not everything

15. January 2021
HOTTINGER vs. HOTTINGUER: trademark dispute over financial services

HOTTINGER vs. HOTTINGUER: trademark dispute over financial services

12. January 2021
US Trademark Law Modernized (TMA): Faster and Better for Trademark Challenges

US Trademark Law Modernized (TMA): Faster and Better for Trademark Challenges

7. January 2021
Nice Classification 2021: Robots, Joysticks and Automation

Nice Classification 2021: Robots, Joysticks and Automation

Footer

Contact

Franklinstr. 61-63
D-60486 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Customer Reviews

Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB Patentrecht, Markenrecht, Eigentum hat 4,78 von 5 Sternen 23 Bewertungen auf ProvenExpert.com

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Info secure emails
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form