EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-569/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 December 2008 — Internetportal und Marketing GmbH v Richard Schlicht

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008CN0569

62008CN0569

January 1, 2008
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

21.3.2009

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/22

(Case C-569/08)

(2009/C 69/40)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Internetportal und Marketing GmbH

Defendant: Richard Schlicht

Questions referred

1. Is Article 21(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration to be interpreted as meaning that a right within the meaning of that provision exists,

(a)if, without any intention to use it for goods or services, a trade mark is acquired only for the purpose of being able to register in the first phase of phased registration a domain corresponding to a German-language generic term?

(b)if the trade mark underlying the domain registration and coinciding with a German-language generic term deviates from the domain in so far as the trade mark contains special characters which were eliminated from the domain name although the special characters were capable of being rewritten and their elimination has the effect that the domain differs from the trade mark in a way which excludes any likelihood of confusion?

2.Is Article 21(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that a legitimate interest exists only in the cases mentioned in Article 21(2)(a) to (c)?

If that question is answered in the negative:

3.Does a legitimate interest within the meaning of Article 21(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 exist if the domain holder intends to use the domain — coinciding with a German-language generic term — for a thematic internet portal?

If questions (1) and (3) are answered in the affirmative:

4.Is Article 21(3) of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that only the circumstances mentioned in subparagraphs (a) to (e) are capable of establishing bad faith within the meaning of Article 21(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004?

If that question is answered in the negative:

5.Does bad faith within the meaning of Article 21(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 exist if a domain was registered in the first phase of phased registration on the basis of a trade mark, coinciding with a German-language generic term, which the domain holder acquired only for the purpose of being able to register the domain in the first phase of phased registration and thereby to pre-empt other interested parties, including the holders of rights to the mark?

(1) OJ 2004 L 162, p. 40.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia