The Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) had to clarify when a foreign website can infringe Austrian trademark and design rights. The decisive factor is not solely whether a website is accessible in Austria, but whether it has a sufficient economic connection to the Austrian market.
In southern Styria, the plaintiff operates high-quality holiday apartments and rooms under the name "Golden Hill." This name shapes its market presence and is used both on its own domains and on international booking platforms. The defendant is also active in the hospitality industry. It operates a tourist property in South Tyrol and also uses the name "Golden Hill"—among other things, for its corporate website, a domain, and various online booking channels. For the plaintiff, this identical name was not a coincidence, but rather an infringement of its Austrian trademark and design rights. It therefore took action against the defendant's use of the name and applied for preliminary injunction.
At the heart of the decision was the question of whether a website operated in Italy could infringe Austrian trademark rights. The Supreme Court (OGH) first clarified that the mere accessibility of a foreign website in Austria is not automatically sufficient. Rather, the decisive factor is whether there is a sufficient economic connection to the Austrian market. Factors that can play a role in this case-by-case assessment include the design of the online offering, existing booking options, the language used, the target audience, the industry involved, and the use of international booking platforms. In the specific case, the interplay of these factors established a sufficient connection to Austria. Cross-border market presence is typical, especially for tourism offerings: guests research online, compare offers, and make bookings regardless of the location of the respective accommodation provider. Since both companies used the identical name "Golden Hill" for comparable, high-quality accommodation services, the plaintiff's Austrian trademark rights could also be infringed by the website operated in South Tyrol. The Supreme Court therefore essentially reinstated the interim injunction already issued in the first instance.
The ruling clarifies that the internet does not automatically negate the territorial protection of trademark rights. A company cannot simply rely on the fact that its website is operated abroad. In practice, this means that anyone marketing tourist offers, hotels, chalets, or vacation rentals via the internet and international booking platforms should conduct a comprehensive trademark and designation search right from the name selection stage. This is because what matters is not only where a company is based, but also which market it actually reaches with its online presence. Particularly in cross-border tourism, the Austrian market can also fall within the scope of protection of foreign trademark rights.
Supreme Court 27.04.2026, 4 Ob 107/25a