Case number and/or case name
BGH, 12.12.2013 – I ZR 131/12
Summary
The parties argued about damage claims and an injunction. The plaintiff has alleged an infringement of § 4 no. 7 (UWG = German law on unlawful competition). The defendant had published a press release in English on his English website. It was doubtful whether German courts were internationally competent pursuant to Art. 5 no. 3 Brussels I.
The court held that it was relevant whether the internet content was directed towards the market of Germany. It wasn’t decisive that the competitor’s habitual residence was Germany. The English content of an English website was directed towards Germany if users of the website’s German version had access to the English website and if the English website’s content dealt with issues appealing to users in Germany.The court denied the necessity of a preliminary reference to the CJEU.
In the present case the court refused to transfer the guidelines stated by the CJEU regarding the violation of personality rights to the present case. It denied the relevance of the competitor’s habitual residence to the question of the place where the harmful event occurred. Infringements of law on unlawful competition in fact seem to relevantly differ from those regarding personality rights. It is however not clear if the CJEU aims to restrict the claims’ extent in terms of violations of law on competition as it did in terms of the infringement of personality rights (eDate).