Purpose
Domain disputes concern the collision of a registered internet domain with name, sign or trademark rights of third parties. This skill assigns the facts to the correct legal bases — § 12 BGB (name law), § 5 MarkenG and § 15 MarkenG (business designation), § 14 MarkenG (registered trademark) — clarifies priority, determines cease-and-desist, deletion and transfer consequences and assesses the protective DENIC dispute entry.
Inputs
- Disputed domain (second level, TLD) and registration date
- Role of the client (domain holder / claimant)
- Own sign position (registered trademark, company sign, civil name, regional authority)
- Priority dates of both sides (trademark application / name use / domain registration)
- Actual use of the domain (active content, industry, offer for sale)
- Same name / legitimate own interest of the holder?
Sub-agent architecture
Processing follows three roles. A legal position agent determines which sign rights exist for the claimant (trademark under § 14 MarkenG, business designation under §§ 5, 15 MarkenG, name law under § 12 BGB) and examines industry/goods similarity as well as likelihood of confusion. A priority agent establishes the chronological order, examines same-named status and the fairness principle of priority as well as possible exceptions (overriding fame, right of the same-named). A legal consequences agent determines the enforceable claims — cease-and-desist, deletion/waiver (no general transfer claim under BGH), DENIC dispute for protection — and assesses domain grabbing as a special case. The roles work sequentially; without an established legal position, no claim arises. Case numbers are cited only when verified, otherwise marked with [unverifiziert – prüfen] (zero fabrication).
Process
1. Establish sign position
| Basis | Subject matter of protection | Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| § 12 BGB | civil name, company, association/regional name | name usurpation / allocation confusion |
| § 5 MarkenG | business designation (company sign, work title) | use in commercial transactions, distinctive character |
| § 15 MarkenG | protection of the business designation | likelihood of confusion / fame protection |
| § 14 MarkenG | registered trademark | identity/similarity + goods/services similarity |
§ 12 BGB remains applicable alongside trademark protection insofar as consequences are sought that trademark law does not support (e.g., cancellation of the registration as such).
2. Infringement examination
- Likelihood of confusion: similarity of signs × proximity of industries/goods × distinctive character.
- In the case of merely private or non-industry use: no infringement of the business designation, but possibly unauthorized use of a name under § 12 BGB.
3. Priority and identical names
- Principle: the earlier right prevails.
- Right of persons with the same name: if there is a legitimate interest of their own, the first registrant may keep the domain (exception in the case of overwhelming fame of the opposing party).
4. Legal consequences
- Cessation of the trademark-infringing use.
- Cancellation / waiver of the domain — but no general claim to transfer (BGH).
- DENIC dispute entry: blocks transfer to third parties and secures for the applicant the expectancy to the domain upon its becoming available.
- Damages / information in the case of fault.
5. Domain grabbing
Registration without an interest of one's own, solely in order to obstruct the trademark owner or to sell the domain at a high price: anti-competitive obstruction (§ 826 BGB, § 4 no. 4 UWG) alongside trademark claims.
Risks / typical mistakes
- Domain grabbing overlooked — abusive registration requires its own basis for a claim (§ 826 BGB / UWG) alongside § 12 BGB.
- DENIC dispute missed — without an entry, the owner can transfer the domain to third parties during the dispute and render the claim ineffective.
- Transfer instead of cancellation sought — case law generally grants only waiver/cancellation, not a claim to transfer; the wrong application fails.
- Likelihood of confusion wrongly affirmed — where there is no proximity of industries, § 15 MarkenG does not apply; only § 12 BGB can support the claim.
Output format
DOMAINRECHT — <Domain> — <Datum>
I. Kennzeichenposition
Anspruchsteller: [§ 14 MarkenG / §§ 5,15 MarkenG / § 12 BGB]
Inhaber-Interesse: [keins / gleichnamig / branchenfremd]
II. Verletzung
Verwechslungsgefahr: [✓ / ✗] Begründung: <…>
III. Priorität
Älteres Recht: [Anspruchsteller / Inhaber]
Gleichnamigkeit: [relevant / nein]
IV. Rechtsfolgen
Unterlassung: [✓ / ✗]
Löschung/Verzicht: [✓ / ✗] (kein Übertragungsanspruch)
DENIC-Dispute: [empfohlen / gesetzt]
V. Domain-Grabbing: [ja (§ 826 BGB / UWG) / nein]
Handlungsempfehlung: <…>
Sources
- § 12 BGB (right to a name)
- § 5 MarkenG, § 15 MarkenG (business designation)
- § 14 MarkenG (registered trademark)
- § 826 BGB, § 4 UWG (obstruction)
- DENIC domain terms and conditions / DENIC dispute proceedings
- BGH, judgment of 22.11.2001 – I ZR 138/99, BGHZ 149, 191 = GRUR 2002, 622 – "shell.de" (right to a name vs. domain), dejure.org
- BGH, judgment of 17.05.2001 – I ZR 251/99, BGHZ 148, 13 = GRUR 2001, 1038 – "ambiente.de" (DENIC's duties of examination only in the case of obvious legal infringement), dejure.org
- BGH "afilias.de" (DENIC liability, transfer)
[unverifiziert – prüfen]— case number and date cannot be determined; dejure does not index decision names, check the citation in juris/Beck-Online