LG Frankfurt; 2015-06-23; 2-03 O 261/15
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LGFFM:2015:0623.2.03O261.15.0A
Date: 2015-06-23
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82015DE0623(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case resolved by the Landgericht Frankfurt (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) concerns the infringement of a copyright on the internet.
The plaintiff provided credible evidence that the defendant had illegally infringed its rights protected under the Urheberrechtsgesetz (1) in the past. The plaintiff credibly claimed that the defendant, in its capacity as a so called upstream provider, had not taken any effective measures against the continuing use of its infrastructure for committing the copyright infringement even though the plaintiff had repeatedly presented concrete evidence that the online streaming platforms …, … and …, the infrastructure/services of which had been provided by the defendant, were used for broadcasting football matches of the 1st and 2nd Bundesliga without the consent of the plaintiff and/or the broadcasting station SKY.
Although the defendant itself had not actively participated in this infringement of the Urheberrechtsgesetz, the plaintiff was able to present credible evidence that SKY football matches could be seen in Germany through …, … and … even after the defendant was notified of the respective infringement.
In the event of infringement of copyright through illegal live-stream broadcast forwarding of Bundesliga matches, the German courts also have international jurisdiction under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2) when claims are being made against a provider domiciled outside the European Union who provides technical support for such live-streams by providing the necessary infrastructure. In this case, the place where the harmful event occurred (also) was the Federal Republic of Germany. The SKY football matches, which had been forward broadcasted as streaming through the internet channels …, … and/or …, were also available to the public in Germany on the internet.
Even though the upstream provider had not actively participated in the infringement, according to the Court of First Instance, the upstream providers domiciled outside the European Union are in such cases at least subject to liability under the German principles of disturbance liability. If an upstream provider is notified that a specific streaming platform uses its services for illegal live-stream broadcast forwarding, the provider is obligated to prevent any further use of its services for the purpose of the respective copyright infringement conducted by indicated streaming platform. The failure of the provider to do so gives rise to its liability as disturber. The defendant did not meet the obligation and was therefore liable as disturber.
(1) Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte. (Act on Copyright and Related Rights).
(2) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.