# C_2011030EN.01001901.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 November 2010 — Wintersteiger AG v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH

(Case C-523/10)

()

2011/C 30/32

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wintersteiger AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | In the case of an alleged infringement by a person established in another Member State of a trade mark granted in the State of the court seised through the use of a keyword (AdWord) identical to that trade mark in an internet search engine which offers its services under various country-specific top-level domains, is the phrase ‘place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (‘Brussels I’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that:






  1.1. | jurisdiction is established only if the keyword is used on the search engine website the top-level domain of which is that of the State of the court seised; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

In the case of an alleged infringement by a person established in another Member State of a trade mark granted in the State of the court seised through the use of a keyword (AdWord) identical to that trade mark in an internet search engine which offers its services under various country-specific top-level domains, is the phrase ‘place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (‘Brussels I’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that:

1

1.1.

jurisdiction is established only if the keyword is used on the search engine website the top-level domain of which is that of the State of the court seised;

| 1.2. | jurisdiction is established only if the search engine website on which the keyword is used can be accessed in the State of the court seised; |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

jurisdiction is established only if the search engine website on which the keyword is used can be accessed in the State of the court seised;

| 1.3. | jurisdiction is dependent on the satisfaction of other requirements additional to the accessibility of the website? |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

jurisdiction is dependent on the satisfaction of other requirements additional to the accessibility of the website?

| 2. | If Question 1.3 is answered in the affirmative:
  Which criteria are to be used to determine whether jurisdiction under Article 5(3) of Brussels I is established where a trade mark granted in the State of the court seised is used as an AdWord on a search engine website with a country-specific top-level domain different from that of the State of the court seised? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1.3 is answered in the affirmative:

Which criteria are to be used to determine whether jurisdiction under Article 5(3) of Brussels I is established where a trade mark granted in the State of the court seised is used as an AdWord on a search engine website with a country-specific top-level domain different from that of the State of the court seised?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1.

1

---