Urteil im Verfahren Interflora v. Marks & Spencer

In Großbritanien hat der High Court seine lang erwartete Entscheidung im Verfahren zwsichen Interflora und Marks & Spencer getroffen. Das Verfahren, in dem der EuGH 2011 Vorlagefragen des englischen High Court beantwortet hat, betrifft mal wieder die Buchung einer fremden Marke als Keyword. Einen Bericht dazu gibt es bei The Guardian.

Drei Punkte möchte ich hier herausgreifen:



1. Das Gericht analysiert sehr genau die AdWords-Rechtsprechung des EuGH und kommt dabei - anders als der BGH - zu einem recht markeninhaberfreundlichen Maßstab:

i) The origin function of a trade mark is adversely affected by keyword advertising triggered by the trade mark if the advertisement does not enable reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant internet users, or enables them only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the advertised goods or services originate from the trade mark proprietor (or an economically-connected undertaking) or from a third party.

ii) The onus lies upon the advertiser to ensure that the advertisement does enable such users to ascertain this without difficulty and hence that there is no real risk of such users being confused.
iii) It is not sufficient to establish an adverse effect that some internet users may have difficulty in grasping that the advertised goods or services are independent of the trade mark proprietor. Confusion on the part of ill-informed or unobservant internet users must be discounted.
iv) If the advertisement causes a significant section of the relevant class of persons wrongly to believe that the advertised goods or services are connected to the trade mark proprietor, that does establish an adverse effect. Thus there is no single meaning rule.
v) In the context of the present case, it is relevant to consider whether the reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant internet user is aware that M & S's flower delivery service is not part of the Interflora network and, if not, whether M & S's advertisements enable such a user to ascertain this.


2. Im Ergebnis wohl durchaus zutreffend, gelangt der High Court zu einer Markenrechtsverletzung. Ausschlaggebend dafür ist für mich, dass Interflora ein Netzwerk zum Vertrieb von Blumen betreibt und seine Geschäftspartner immer unter ihrem eigenen Namen auftreten. Aufgrund dieser Marktgegebenheiten ist es für einen Internetnutzer, der nach Interflora sucht und als Werbeergebnis die Seite von Marks & Spencer eingeblendet bekommt, nicht ganz fernliegend, dass Marks & Spencer zum Netzwerk von Interflora gehört.

As noted above, the Court of Justice expressed the view that the nature of the Interflora network may make it particularly difficult for the reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant internet user to determine, in the absence of any indication in the advertisement, whether M & S's service was part of the network or not. I agree with this. As explained above, it is a feature of the Interflora network that members trade under their own names. In addition, as discussed above, Interflora has commercial tie-ups with several large retailers. This makes it all the more plausible that there should be a connection between M & S's flower delivery service and the Interflora network.


3.Für alle, die in dem Bereich des Keyword-Advertising die Entwicklung der Rechtsprechung nach den EuGH-Urteilen näher analysieren möchten, ist die folgende Aufstellung an Urteilen sicher hilfreich:

i) Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH v Guni, Oberster Gerichtshof, 21 June 2010 [2011] GRUR Int 173. This was the national sequel to the ruling by the CJEU discussed above.


ii) CNRRH v Google France SARL, Cour de Cassation, 13 July 2010. Again this was the national sequel to the ruling by the CJEU discussed above.
iii) Billedbutikken Odense ApS x Pixelpartner by Anette v Andersen, So-og Handelsretten (Danish Maritime and Commercial Court), 17 November 2010.
iv) Tempur Benelux BV v The Energy + Company BV, Rechtsbank's-Gravenhage (District Court of the Hague), 20 December 2010.
v) BANANABAY II, Bundesgerichtshof, 13 January 2011. Again this was the national sequel to the ruling by the CJEU discussed above.
vi) Kappazeta SPA v Geosec SRL, Ordinary Court of Bologna, 24 May 2011.
vii) Tempur Benelux BV v Medicomfort BV, Gerechtshof's-Gravenhage (Court of Appeal of The Hague), 22 November 2011.
viii) Professional Computer Associés France v Suza International France, Cour de Cassation, 29 November 2011.
ix) Maherlo Iberica SL v Clazados Fernando Garcia, Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Madrid (Commercial Court No 9 of Madrid), 22 December 2011.
x) Prescan BV v Privatescan BV, Rechtsbank's-Gravenhage, 22 August 2012.
xi) Auto IES v Google, Cour de Cassation, 25 August 2012.
xii) Antura AB v CANEA Partner Group AB, Hovrätten för Västra Sverige (Court of Appeal for Western Sweden), 28 August 2012.
xiii) Hechaime v Protagoras SARL, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (Paris High Court), 22 November 2012.
xiv) Flos SpA v Lightsten SRL, Tribunale de Milano (Court of Milan), 23 November 2012.
xv) Elkskling AB v Kundkraft Sverige AB, Marknadsdomstolen (Swedish Market Court), 11 December 2012.
xvi) MOST-Pralinen, Bundesgerichtshof, 13 December 2012.
xvii) Groupe SEB Nederland BV v Philips Consumer Lifestyle BV, Rechtsbank's-Gravenhage, 23 January 2013.
xviii) Cobrason v Solutions, Cour de Cassation, 29 January 2013.