Der Vorrang des Markenrechts

This paper deals with the fundamental question of additional trademark protection beyond the German Trademark Act, i.e. whether a trademark can additionally be protected against infringement by provisions of especially unfair competition law, and if so, under which conditions. The landmark decision in this context is the ruling of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) in the MAC Dog case, in which the court established the so called These vom Vorrang des Markenrechts (thesis of the primacy of trademark law) by stating that in general the provisions of the Trademark Act are prior to non-trademark provisions when it comes to trademark protection. But this primacy thesis is heavily contested and those rejecting this approach have gained strength both in number and argumentation since the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC came into force. But neither this directive nor the conflict rule of section 2 German Trade Mark Act necessitates a waiver of the primacy thesis. The application of the primacy thesis by the Federal Court of Justice is currently only half-hearted and not convincing, too many exceptions being made. The court widens the range of additional protection, and as a result the primacy thesis too often degenerates into a farce. This development is to be viewed very critically as the purpose of the primacy thesis is a very expedient one. The system of protection established by the German Trade Mark Act is quite sophisticated and the result of certain evaluations. These evaluations, in particular with regard to what kind of trademark is supposed to be protected against which kind of infringement – and against which not – are ignored and undermined if additional trademark protection is granted by applying German Unfair Competition Act (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb; UWG) and German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch; BGB) provisions too excessively. This article develops a five-step test to uncover the evaluations behind a possible refusal of protection by trade mark law and by this to reach a reasonable scope of application of the primacy thesis. Applying this test to different cases of trademark infringements, it is shown that only in two cases exemptions of the rule have to be made. Because of EC Directives both section 5 para. 2 and section 6 para. 2 Unfair Competition Act have to be applied next to the provisions of the Trademark Act. In every other case there is no substantial need for protection. This is particularly true when it comes to trade mark protection via unfair competition law-related performance protection. As there is no need for further protection, the evaluations of trade mark law have to be respected. This can only be provided by maintaining the thesis of the primacy of trademark law and by applying it consequently. Nicht nur markengesetzliche, sondern auch außermarkengesetzliche Normen bieten potentiell Schutz gegen Kennzeichenverletzungen, insbesondere solche des UWG. Ob und in welchem Maße ein solcher ergänzender lauterkeitsrechtlicher Kennzeichenschutz zulässig ist, oder anders gewendet, inwieweit das Markengesetz abschließend ist, ist eine der grundlegendsten und umstrittensten Fragen des Kennzeichenrechts. Der Bundesgerichtshof geht davon aus, dass der markengesetzliche Kennzeichenschutz den außermarkengesetzlichen grundsätzlich verdrängt. Der Beitrag untersucht die Frage nach der Berechtigung und der aktuellen sowie potentiellen Reichweite dieser sog. Vorrangthese. Hierbei wird ein mehrstufiges Prüfungsschema entwickelt, anhand dessen fallgruppenbezogen die Anwendung der Vorrangthese in Rechtsprechung und Literatur einer kritischen Würdigung unterzogen und ein Vorschlag für eine stimmigere Handhabung der Vorrangthese unterbreitet wird.