CELEX: 62008CN0278
Language: en
Date: 2008-06-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-278/08: 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

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?
                        
                     
         
      (1)   OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.