Another Keyword Advertising Reference – Wintersteiger
And the questions are as follows ..
1. In the case of an alleged infringement by a person established in another Member State of a trade mark granted in the State of the court seized through the use of a keyword (AdWord) identical to that trade mark in an internet search engine which offers its services under various country-specific top-level domains, is the phrase “the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur” in Article 5(3) of Regulation 44/2001 (“Brussels I”) is to be interpreted as meaning that;
1.1. jurisdiction is established only if the keyword is used on the search engine website the top-level domain of which is that of the State of the court seized;
1.2. jurisdiction is established only if the search engine website on which the keyword is used can be accessed in the State of the court seized;
1.3. jurisdiction is dependent on the satisfaction or other requirements additional to the accessibility of the website?
2. If Question1.3 is answered in the affirmative: Which criteria are to be used to determine whether jurisdiction under Article 5(3) of Brussels I is established where a trade mark granted in the State of the course seized is used as an AdWord on a search engine website with a country-specific top-level domain different from that of the State of the court seized?
Huťko guess that all keyword enthusiasts (especially Max Schubert and Birgit Clark :)) will immediately add this piece into their personal wiki, probably right next to L’Oreal v. eBay C-324/09 and Interflora C-323/09.