The deliberate acquisition of a domain name that is likely to be confused with a competitor’s business name may constitute unfair interference under Section 4(4) of the German Unfair Competition Act (UWG). This applies in particular when the domain redirects to one’s own website and is subsequently offered for sale to the competitor. The Higher Regional Court of Cologne ruled on this in its decision of July 22, 2026 (Case No. 6 W 8/26).
What was the issue?
The parties are law firms specializing in media law. The defendant has been operating under the name “Media Kanzlei” for several years and uses the domain “media-kanzlei.com” for this purpose. In February 2025, the plaintiff acquired, among other things, the domain “media-kanzlei.de,” which had been in existence since 2009, and set up a redirect from that domain to its own law firm’s website.
After the defendant had demanded that the plaintiff cease the redirection, the plaintiff raised the possibility of selling the domain. The defendant then issued a cease-and-desist letter to the plaintiff, alleging, among other things, intentional obstruction. The plaintiff sought a court ruling that the asserted claims were without merit. After the legal dispute was settled, the issue of costs remained—and, indirectly, the question of whether the cease-and-desist letter had been justified.
The Decision of the Higher Regional Court of Cologne
The Higher Regional Court of Cologne upheld the Regional Court’s decision on costs, which was unfavorable to the plaintiff. In the opinion of the panel, the action for a declaratory judgment was unfounded because the defendant was entitled to an injunction under competition law.
The registration of the domain alone was not the decisive factor in this case. Rather, the court conducted a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances. Factors indicating intentional obstruction included, in particular, the parties’ prior disputes, the plaintiff’s knowledge of the competitor’s use of the domain with a similar name, the redirection to the competitor’s own law firm website, and the subsequent offer to sell.
The Higher Regional Court is thus following the case law of the Federal Court of Justice: Even in the absence of trademark protection, the registration and use of a domain name may constitute an unfair competitive practice if it results in the improper diversion of a competitor’s customers.
Important for Practical Application
The decision shows that the acquisition of an available domain name is not automatically permissible under competition law simply because the competitor does not have a prior trademark right. Rather, the purpose and specific use of the domain name are the decisive factors.
A particularly risky practice involves acquiring a domain name that is clearly associated with a competitor or that could be confused with the competitor’s business name, redirecting it to one’s own website, and then offering it for sale to the competitor. In such a scenario, the overall assessment may indicate intentional obstruction under Section 4(4) of the German Unfair Competition Act (UWG).
