BGH; 2024-11-21; I ZR 107/23
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:BGH:2024:211124UIZR107.23.0
Date: 2024-11-21
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: Germany

82024DE1121(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
An association of the 36 clubs and corporations of the 1st and 2nd German Bundesliga (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied for a cease-and-desist order regarding the sale of tickets for the annual DFL Supercup by the operator of an online ticket exchange (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) before official sales outlets had offered tickets. The plaintiff also complained of misleading advertising statements regarding ticket availability and criticised the lack of company information and seller identity on the platform.
The Landgericht München I (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) largely upheld the action and prohibited the defendant from selling tickets under the conditions complained of.
The defendant then appealed to the Oberlandesgericht München (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), which dismissed the action. It argued that there was no concrete competitive relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, as the defendant merely provided a platform and did not sell its own tickets. Furthermore, it had not been sufficiently demonstrated that entrepreneurs who were in direct competition with the plaintiff were trading on the platform.
The plaintiff pursued its claim further by filing a revision to the Bundesgerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’). The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had insufficiently examined the possibility of an indirect competitive relationship. In particular, it had to be examined whether the defendant’s advertising statements had a negative impact on the plaintiff’s market position and whether the defendant, as the platform operator, changed the conditions of sale on the primary market through its advertising strategies.
The Supreme Court considered the claim to be justified with regard to the advertising statements and the lack of company information but pointed out that the plaintiff had to specify the claim as it was too broad. In addition, the Supreme Court stated that it was sufficient for a competitive relationship to exist if a correlation between the defendant’s business practices and the plaintiff’s disadvantages could be proven.
The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the Court of Appeal and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal for a new hearing.