Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Austria

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Antitrust for Small and Middle Size Undertakings and Image Protection from Non-Competitors

  • 487 Accesses

Abstract

The legal action for trademark infringement is traditionally seen as a response to a third party’s use of the sign that forms the trademark for goods or services that are identical (or similar) to those for which the trademark is registered, meaning for goods or services regarding which the two undertakings are, by definition, competing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    ECJ, case C-323/09, Interflora Inc. and Interflora British Unit v Marks & Spencer plc et Flowers Direct Online Ltd., ECR 2011 I-8625 and ECJ, case C-487/07, L’Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC and Laboratoire Garnier & Cie v Bellure NV, Malaika Investments Ltd and Starion International Ltd., ECR 2009 I-5185.

  2. 2.

    See definitions in Sect. 17.2.2.

  3. 3.

    See Sect. 17.2.3.

  4. 4.

    Cf. Article 6(2)(a) of Directive 2005/29/EC: “a commercial practice shall also be regarded as misleading if, in its factual context, taking account of all its features and circumstances, it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise, and it involves: (a) any marketing of a product, including comparative advertising, which creates confusion with any products, trademarks, trade names or other distinguishing marks of a competitor.”

  5. 5.

    Mayerhofer, Markenimageforschung [2009].

  6. 6.

    Austrian Trademark Act Federal Law Gazette 1970/260 as amended by Federal Law Gazette 2009/126.

  7. 7.

    Austrian Supreme Court 17 Ob 28/08d.

  8. 8.

    Austrian Supreme Court 4 Ob 110/10w.

  9. 9.

    Austrian Supreme Court 17 Ob 15/09v.

  10. 10.

    Austrian Supreme Court 4 Ob 189/89.

  11. 11.

    Austrian Supreme Court 4 Ob 119/10v.

  12. 12.

    A federal state of the Republic of Austria.

  13. 13.

    Austrian Supreme Court 17 Ob 15/09v.

  14. 14.

    Austrian Supreme Court 4 Ob 212/11x.

  15. 15.

    Austrian Unfair Competition Act Federal Law Gazette 1984/448 as last amended by Federal Law Gazette I 2007/79.

  16. 16.

    Austrian Supreme Court 17 Ob 19/11k.

  17. 17.

    Verein für Konsumenteninformation.

  18. 18.

    Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests, OJ 1998 L 166, 51.

  19. 19.

    Austrian Supreme Court 4 Ob 2200/96z.

  20. 20.

    Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’ OJ 2005 L 149, 22.

  21. 21.

    Austrian Supreme Court 17 Ob 26/11i.

  22. 22.

    Austrian Supreme Court 17 Ob 22/11a; previous case law was of the opposite opinion: Austrian Supreme Court 7 Ob 14/10y.

  23. 23.

    Austrian Patent Act, Federal Law Gazette 1970/259 as last amended by Federal Law Gazette 2009/135.

  24. 24.

    Austrian General Civil Code, JGS 1811/946 as last amended by Federal Law Gazette I 2012/68.

  25. 25.

    Austrian Supreme Court 4 Ob 340/72; 4 Ob 341/81.

  26. 26.

    Austrian Supreme Court 4 Ob 110/88.

  27. 27.

    Austrian Supreme Court 4 Ob 290/98w.

  28. 28.

    Austrian Supreme Court 17 Ob 28/11h.

  29. 29.

    Austrian Supreme Court 17 Ob 44/08g.

  30. 30.

    Federal Act on Copyright of Works of Literature and Arts and Related Rights, Federal Law Gazette 1936/111 as last amended by Federal Law Gazette I 2010/58.

  31. 31.

    See Section 10(2) of the Austrian Trade Mark Act in Sect. 17.2.3.1.

  32. 32.

    Cf. Austrian Supreme Court 17 Ob 26/11i; see Section 2(3)(1) of the Austrian Unfair Competition Act in Sect. 17.2.3.2.

  33. 33.

    Austrian Supreme Court, 4 Ob 38/08d.

  34. 34.

    Austrian Supreme Court 17 Ob 25/08p.

  35. 35.

    Austrian Supreme Court 17 Ob 26/11i.

  36. 36.

    Austrian Supreme Court 17 Ob 3/10f.

  37. 37.

    Austrian Supreme Court, 4 Ob 130/10m.

  38. 38.

    Austrian Supreme Court, 4 Ob 105/99s.

  39. 39.

    Austrian Supreme Court, 4 Ob 225/01v.

  40. 40.

    See, e.g., Austrian Supreme Court 4 Ob 139/01x.

  41. 41.

    Austrian Supreme Court, 17 Ob 6/11y.

  42. 42.

    Austrian Supreme Court 4 Ob 197/10i.

  43. 43.

    Austrian Supreme Court 17 Ob 2/09g.

  44. 44.

    See UDRP below.

  45. 45.

    Cf. Austrian Supreme Court, 4 Ob 176/01p.

  46. 46.

    Austrian Supreme Court 4 Ob 308/00y.

  47. 47.

    Cf. regarding <schladming.com> the UDRP proceeding and Austrian Supreme Court, 17 Ob 16/10t.

  48. 48.

    Austrian Supreme Court, 4Ob42/04m.

  49. 49.

    Section 7 of the Austrian Unfair Competition Act reads: “(1) Any party who for competitive purposes alleges or disseminates facts about the enterprise of another, about the person of the owner or manager of the enterprise or about the goods or services of another which may be detrimental to the business of the enterprise or the credit standing of its owner shall be liable [to pay] damages to the injured [party] unless such facts are demonstrably true. The injured [party] may file a claim to cease and desist from alleging or disseminating the facts. The injured [party] may furthermore demand retraction and publication of the retraction. (2) Where confidential information is concerned and the disclosing or receiving party has a legitimate interest in such information, any claim to cease and desist shall be permissible only when the facts have been alleged or disseminated contrary to the truth. Any claim for payment of damages may be asserted only when the disclosing party knew or was bound to know the untruthfulness of the facts.”

  50. 50.

    See Section 1 of the Austrian Unfair Competition Act.

  51. 51.

    See Section 2 of the Austrian Unfair Competition Act.

  52. 52.

    Austrian Supreme Court 4 Ob 212/11x.

  53. 53.

    Council Regulation 207/2009/207/EC of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

  54. 54.

    Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) OJ L 299, 25.

  55. 55.

    Section 1(1)(1) of the Austrian Unfair Competition Act.

  56. 56.

    Section 2 of the Austrian Unfair Competition Act.

  57. 57.

    Section 9 of the Austrian Unfair Competition Act.

  58. 58.

    Austrian Supreme Court 17 Ob 7/09t.

  59. 59.

    See also Sect. 17.2.3.2.

  60. 60.

    See, e.g., Austrian Supreme Court 17 Ob 28/08d.

  61. 61.

    Austrian Supreme Court, 4 Ob 38/08d.

  62. 62.

    Austrian Supreme Court, 17 Ob 25/08p.

  63. 63.

    Austrian Supreme Court, 17 Ob 26/11i.

  64. 64.

    Cf. regarding “Imitation Marketing”.

  65. 65.

    Cf. Article 5(2) Directive 2008/95/EC.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gassauer-Fleissner, Vienna, Austria

    Max W. Mosing

  2. Chamber of Commerce, Vienna, Austria

    Christian Handig

Authors
  1. Max W. Mosing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Handig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Max W. Mosing .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Geneva, Switzerland

    Pranvera Këllezi

  2. Addleshaw Goddard, London, United Kingdom

    Bruce Kilpatrick

  3. Etude Hirsch Kobel, Geneva, Switzerland

    Pierre Kobel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mosing, M.W., Handig, C. (2014). Austria. In: Këllezi, P., Kilpatrick, B., Kobel, P. (eds) Antitrust for Small and Middle Size Undertakings and Image Protection from Non-Competitors. LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54000-4_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation