Source: http://blog-markenrecht.de/tag/christian-welkenbach/
Timestamp: 2018-07-20 18:18:39
Document Index: 391886252

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 5', '§ 5', 'BGH', 'BGH', 'BGH', '§ 8']

Christian Welkenbach – Das Blog für Markenrecht
Anfang Christian Welkenbach
Unsere Marke des Monats kommt heute aus Kanada und hört auf den Namen „TDI CLEAN DIESEL“.
Nachdem sich das Gelächter über die Nominierung zur Marke des Monats gelegt hat und sich einige Autobauer in den USA fragen, wie sie an die wertvolle Manipulationssoftware rankommen können, um die strengen kalifornischen Abgasnormen unterwandern zu können, haben kanadische Behörden ebenfalls angekündigt Kontrollen bezüglich der zugelassenen Dieselfahrzeuge des Volkswagen Konzerns durchzuführen. Grund genug, einmal in das kanadische Markenregister zu schauen. Dabei stößt man unweigerlich auf die Wortmarke „TDI CLEAN DIESEL„, die zugunsten der VOLKSWAGEN AG dort seit dem 31.03.2010 für Waren der Warenklasse 12, nämlich für motor vehicles, namely, automobiles, trucks, vans, sport utility vehicles, motor homes, travel trailers, and buses and engines therefore eingetragen ist.
Ob die Bezeichnung „Clean Diesel“ in diesem Zusammenhang zutreffend oder gar irreführend ist, wenn die Grenzwerte nur bei Kontrollen aber nicht auf der Straße eingehalten werden, mag letztlich jeder für sich entscheiden. Nach deutschem Recht wäre jedenfalls die Markeneintragung selbst nicht zu beanstanden, weil die Marke wohl nicht entgegen des absoluten Schutzhindernisses gemäß § 8 Abs. 2 Nr. 4 MarkenG eingetragen worden wäre. Nach dieser Vorschrift dürfen solche Marken nicht eingetragen werden, die für sich genommen geeignet sind, das Publikum insbesondere über die Art, die Beschaffenheit oder die geographische Herkunft der Waren oder Dienstleistungen zu täuschen. Im Falle des Volkswagen Manipulationsskandals könnte allenfalls darüber diskutiert werden, ob die Bezeichnung „Clean Diesel“ im Zusammenhang mit manipulierten Abgaswerten bei Dieselfahrzeugen irreführend verwendet wurde, was dann aber eine wettbewerbsrechtliche Frage ist (§ 5 UWG). Dann wäre im Rahmen des § 5 UWG anhand der konkreten Umstände des Einzelfalles zu prüfen, wodurch die Irreführung hervorgerufen wird, z. B. ob sie nur bei einer bestimmten Benutzungsform, durch das Fehlen bestimmter Hinweise, nur im Hinblick auf bestimmte Waren usw. vorliegt (vgl. BGH GRUR 1981, 657 – Schlangenzeichen). Dass die Marke eingetragen wurde, spielt bei der wettbewerbsrechtlichen Beurteilung keine Rolle und ist insbesondere kein Indiz dafür, dass die Marke im konkreten Fall nicht täuschend benutzt wird (BGH GRUR 1955, 251 – Silberal; BGH GRUR 1984, 737, 738 – Ziegelfertigstütze). Der markenrechtliche Irreführungsschutz von § 8 Abs. 2 Nr. 4 MarkenG ist demgegenüber vorgelagert. So soll schon im Eintragungsverfahren verhindert werden, dass Marken, deren Täuschungseignung bereits zum Zeitpunkt der Eintragung ersichtlich ist, eingetragen werden. Wieder was gelernt 😉
Bei all der negativen PR in diesen Tagen zum Thema #Dieselgate beglückwünschen wir die Volkswagen AG jedenfalls für den Titel zur Marke des Monats September.
Gepostet von Christian Welkenbach / September 23, 2015 / Verwendete Schlagwörter Christian Welkenbach, Clean Diesel, Dieselgate, Manipulationsskandal, Marke des Monats, Markenrecht, VOLKSWAGEN, Wortmarke / Gepostet in Marke des Monats, Markenrecht international
WIPO, Case No. D2012-0577: Domain froschreisen.com muss übertragen werden
Frosch Sportreisen GmbH v. E. A.
Case No. D2012-0577
Respondent is E. A. of Izmir, Turkey.
The disputed domain name <froschreisen.com> is registered with PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot (the “Registrar”).
The Complainant submitted a further communication to the Center on May 24, 2012.
Respondent is a Turkish online tour operator. According to its website, it was launched in 2002 and calls itself to be “the largest online travel provider for [sic] the world”. On its website, Respondent offers travel related products and services in five languages.
Fourthly, Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant alleges that it is highly unlikely that Respondent ignored the existence of Complainant’s famous trademark. Complainant assumes that Respondent acts as a dummy for a person named Mr. C.-U. from Munich, who has been ordered by the regional court of Frankfurt to refrain from using the disputed domain name. According to Complainant, Respondent also intentionally used the corporate name of Complainant “Frosch Sportreisen” as a keyword within the source code of the website “www.froschreisen.com” in order to divert users searching for the company of Complainant via search engines. Therefore, according to Complainant, Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark, corporate name, and service mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name.
Consequently, Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant.
Substantially, Respondent relevantly asserts that it has been the owner of the disputed domain name since approximately 2002 and that Complainant has registered its trademark FROSCH SPORTREISEN only in 2010. Additionally, Respondent explains that Mr. C.-U. (whose corporate name is “K.”) would not be the owner of the disputed domain name but only its webhosting provider in Germany. Respondent claims the recent change of the registrant information would have been necessary because its employee (the former registrant of the disputed domain name) died. Additionally, Respondent provides the names of two additional companies in the touristic branch in Germany containing the word “Frosch” in their company name. Mutatis mutandis, Respondent thus requests denial of the Complaint.
C. Complainant’s Supplemental Filings
In its reply to Respondent’s communications, Complainant contends that Mr. C.-U. nonetheless would have operated the website “www.froschreisen.com” and it attached screenshots of the former website “www.froschreisen.com” and “www.k(…).com” (another website of Mr. C.-U.) which show that the telephone numbers of the operators of the two websites are identical. Complainant refers to German Law (Section 5 Telemedia Act) which states that the contact details within the WhoIs have to be the contact details of the operator of the website and not the contact details of the webhosting provider.
Furthermore, according to Complainant, these facts had been confirmed by an annexed decision to the Complaint of the regional court of Frankfurt. Complainant asserts that it was proven in that proceeding that the email address of Respondent, “[…]@yahoo.de”, was the private email address of Mr. C.-U. who used the email address on different websites.
On May 24, 2012, a further unsolicited email was sent by Complainant to the Center and forwarded by the Center to the Panel. In this email, Complainant informed the Center and the Panel that the court decision of the regional court of Frankfurt, attached as Annex 6 to the Complaint, had become res judicata. Under the liberal spirit as mentioned above, the Panel also accepts this additional information by Complainant which remained uncontested by Respondent.
In the present case, the only difference between Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name is the absence of the word “Sport”. The addition of merely generic, descriptive, or geographical words to a trademark in a domain name is normally insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP (see WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 1.9). Thus, the Panel finds that the dominant portion “Frosch” of Complainant’s trademark is incorporated in the disputed domain name and that – by analogy – the omission of the word “Sport” must not be considered as providing a basis of distinctiveness for the purpose of comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name (see Archer-Daniels-Midland Company v. Robyn Bodine (a.k.a. D.L. Tate, Donnie Tate), WIPO Case No. D2002-0482). The Panel also agrees with Complainant that the top-level suffix “.com” in the disputed domain name may be disregarded under the test of confusing similarity as it is a technical requirement of registration.
Taking the above into consideration, the Panel considers that there is a risk that Internet users may actually believe that there is a connection between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s services (see Sports Holdings, Inc. v. Hoffman Hibbett, WIPO Case No. D2007‑0283).
Therefore the Panel holds that Complainant has established the first element of the Policy, paragraph 4(a).
Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It is the consensus view of UDRP panelists that once a complainant has established a prima facie case, it is respondent’s responsibility to prove otherwise (See e.g. Nicole Kidman v. John Zuccarini, d/b/a Cupcake Party, WIPO Case No. D2000-1415; Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. Khaled Ali Soussi, WIPO Case No. D2000-0252).
For all these reasons the Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
Complainant’s trademark was shown to be well-known and in wide use on the Internet, and it has utilized its name FROSCH SPORTREISEN since 1990, especially in Germany. When visiting Respondent’s website, it is noticeable that Respondent’s services are offered initially in German and are addressed to the German speaking public. From the above, it also is apparent that Respondent’s intent is to offer identical services as Complainant and that the website is misleading Internet users for commercial gain. Under these circumstances, it is rather obvious that Respondent knew or should have known about the existence of Complainant’s trademark at the time the disputed domain name was registered, whether in March 2012, as confirmed by the Registrar, or in 2002, as claimed by the Respondent.
For the Panel, Respondent’s assertions regarding the connections between Ercuement Alp, its former employee (and former registrant of the disputed domain name), and Mr. C.-U. are not fully understandable, nor convincing. The fact that the registrant of the disputed domain name may have recently changed does not render the prior or subsequent registration and use of the disputed domain name more legitimate. Furthermore, Respondent does not dispute Mr. C.-U.’s instrumental role in the registration process. And the fact that the regional court of Frankfurt’s decision in the meantime has become final and binding again supports a finding of bad faith.
Therefore, the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are sufficiently made out by Complainant to the Panel.
Gepostet von admin / June 13, 2012 / Verwendete Schlagwörter bad faith, Christian Welkenbach, D2012-0577, Domain Dispute, froschreisen.com, UDRP, WIPO / Gepostet in Markenrecht im Internet, Unternehmenskennzeichen
Gepostet von admin / April 13, 2011 / Verwendete Schlagwörter Bildmarke, Christian Welkenbach, Fachanwalt, Katholische Kirche, Marke des Monats, Markenanmeldung, Markenrecht, Rechtsanwalt, Stephan Rürup, Welkenbach / Gepostet in Marke des Monats
Gepostet von Christian Welkenbach / July 2, 2010 / Verwendete Schlagwörter 6 U 180/09, Christian Welkenbach, DSDS, dsds-news.de, MarkenG, OLG Köln, Res Media, RTL / Gepostet in Domainrecht, Markenrecht im Internet