# C_2008223EN.01003001.xml

| 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? | (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? |
| --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| (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.

---