Federal Court to contest the legal admissibility of so-called “Tippfehler-Domains”
Who among other responsible for competition law I. Civil Division of the Federal Court today ruled on the admissibility of a domain name, is aware logged in an erroneous spelling of an already registered domain name.
The applicant operates under the domain name “www.wetteronline.de” the Internet a weather service. The defendant is the owner of the domain name “wetteronlin.de”. User, the reach of a typo on the website of the defendant, be forwarded from there to a website, advertised on the private health insurance. For each call to this website, the defendant will receive consideration. The applicant claimed, it would thereby, that the respondent interested, who wanted to go to their page, reroute to another website, Disabled in an unfair manner and at the same time her name right is violated. It has the defendant therefore cessation of the use and consent to the cancellation of the domain name “www.wetteronlin.de” taken and to provide information to complete and sought a declaration that the liability for damages.
The district court sentenced the defendant essentially accordance with the application. The appeal of the defendant was unsuccessful. This Court has adopted, the asserted claims existed both in terms of an anticompetitive disability as well as for breach of the right to a name of the applicant.
On appeal by the defendant, the Federal Court, the appeal judgment is quashed and dismissed the action, the extent that the applicant's claims were based on the violation of the right to a name. The Federal Court has a required name for the name protective uniform distinctive character of the name “wetteronline” negative, because it is a purely descriptive term. With “wetteronline” is the business purpose of the applicant referred, “online” Information and services related to “Weather” offer.
In contrast, the Federal Court has accepted, that the practical use of the “Typo domain” from the point of interception of the customer against the Prohibition of Unfair disability in accordance with § 4 No.. 10 UWG violates, if the user is not immediately obvious and pointed to the opening website to the fact, that he is not on the page “wetteronline.de” is. The opposition based on an unfair handicap application for consent to the cancellation of the domain name “wetteronlin.de” the Bundesgerichtshof rejected, because a legally permitted use is possible and the mere registration of the domain name, the applicant does not unfairly handicapped.
Judgment of 22. January 2014 – I ZR 164/12 – wetteronline.de
LG Köln – Judgment of 9. August 2011 – 81 The 42/11,
OLG Cologne – Judgment of 10. February 2012 – 6 You 187/11,