It sounds like an anecdote from the corridors of a law firm: two media law firms are locked in a feud, and one of them promptly buys up the other’s internet address in order to redirect the latter’s prospective clients to its own website. What began as an “entertaining coup” ended up before the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Cologne and resulted in a decision of considerable practical relevance for every business online. The 6th Civil Senate has made it clear: buying up and covertly redirecting a competitor’s domain can be contrary to competition law (OLG Köln, order of 22 July 2026 – 6 W 8/26).
The Case: From a LinkedIn Post to a Legal Dispute
The background was a media law dispute between a YouTuber and an entrepreneur. Both sides were represented by lawyers: a smaller law firm on one side, a larger media law firm on the other.
On LinkedIn, things between them became increasingly heated. An earlier provocation was an AI-generated caricature published by a lawyer from the larger firm, in which a lawyer explained the legal position to an “opinion blogger” in his “hobby cellar”, allegedly without any connection to real persons.
The real escalation was something else: the larger firm acquired several domains, including the German extension of precisely the address under which the smaller firm ran its website. Anyone who called up this variant was taken, unnoticed, via a redirect to the larger firm’s website.
The affected firm then asked for the practice to be stopped. The “entertaining coup” was costing it clients and money, it said. The larger firm, it added, surely had no need to intercept enquiries meant for the smaller one. The larger media law firm’s answer to this: if the message was to be understood as an enquiry about buying one of the domains, this could happily be discussed with the partners. So no concession, but a hinted offer of sale: a detail that the court later assessed as a “ransom” moment.
The Course of the Proceedings
First, the smaller firm sent the larger firm a cease-and-desist letter over the domain redirect (§ 13 para. 1 UWG), thereby asserting a claim for injunctive relief under competition law out of court (§ 8 para. 1, para. 3 no. 1 UWG).
The larger firm responded with an action for a negative declaration (§ 256 para. 1 ZPO). The larger firm’s aim was therefore a declaration that the smaller firm was not entitled to the claims asserted in the cease-and-desist letter.
With such an action, the party against whom a claim is asserted can obtain a court declaration that the claim does not exist. It serves in particular to eliminate the legal uncertainty created by the cease-and-desist letter and to obtain judicial clarification without first having to wait for the opposing party to bring an action.
The smaller firm then brought its own action for an injunction, thereby asserting the claim for injunctive relief under competition law pursuant to § 8 para. 1 UWG in court. These proceedings were now intended to clarify whether it was in fact entitled to the claim for injunctive relief that it had asserted. The larger firm’s action for a negative declaration thereby became unnecessary and was declared settled by the parties.
At first instance, the Regional Court (LG) Cologne ordered the larger firm to bear the costs. It was also unsuccessful at second instance: the OLG Köln dismissed its immediate complaint.
The Decision of the OLG Köln
The OLG Köln upheld the Regional Court’s decision on costs: the larger firm’s action for a negative declaration would have been unfounded because the smaller firm was entitled to the claim for injunctive relief under competition law that it had asserted. The OLG Köln assessed the conduct described as “domain grabbing” as unfair targeted obstruction under § 4 no. 4 UWG in the specific circumstances. As the defendant had already prevailed on the ground of targeted obstruction, the Senate no longer had to decide on the misleading advertising also asserted under § 5 para. 1 UWG. The larger firm therefore had to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Why So-Called “Domain Grabbing” Can Be Contrary to Competition Law
In simplified terms, “domain grabbing” means the deliberate registration of a domain that is linked to the name, business name or internet address of another party in order to derive an advantage for oneself from it. This can happen, for example, through a later sale, by blocking the domain or by redirecting it to one’s own website. However, “domain grabbing” is not a category of unfair conduct under competition law in its own right. The decisive factors are the circumstances in which a domain is registered and used and the effect this has on a competitor.
When Does the Use of a Domain Become Contrary to Competition Law?
The mere acquisition of a domain that is reminiscent of a competitor’s name is not automatically impermissible. Businesses may register domains, secure several internet addresses and, in principle, also redirect these to their own website.
However, the line drawn by competition law may be crossed where the domain is deliberately used to intercept a competitor’s customers. Under § 4 no. 4 UWG, anyone who specifically obstructs a competitor acts unfairly. According to case law, such obstruction can also lie in the registration and use of a domain where a business thereby inappropriately interposes itself between a competitor and its potential customers. What is always decisive is an overall assessment of the specific circumstances (Federal Court of Justice (BGH), judgment of 22 January 2014 – I ZR 164/12, GRUR 2014, 393 paras. 28, 34 et seq. – wetteronline.de).
Excursus: BGH, judgment of 22 January 2014 – I ZR 164/12 – wetteronline.de – There, the BGH held that the specific use of a typo domain infringed the prohibition of unfair obstruction from the point of view of intercepting customers. What was decisive was not the registration of the similar domain alone but its specific use: if, on the other hand, a misdirected user is immediately and clearly told that they have not arrived at the website they were actually looking for, unfair obstruction is regularly to be ruled out. At the time, § 4 no. 10 UWG (former version) applied – today identical in content to § 4 no. 4 UWG.
The OLG Köln took up this idea of intercepting customers. At the same time, the current case goes beyond the classic typo domain: what was decisive here was the overall picture formed by the confusingly similar domain, its redirection to the competitor’s website, the actual misattributions by clients and the further circumstances of the domain acquisition.
Why the OLG Köln Found Targeted Obstruction Here
The OLG Köln did not see the unlawfulness under competition law in the mere acquisition of an internet address. What was decisive was rather the circumstances in which the larger firm had acquired and used it. It knew that the smaller firm had been active on the market under a particular name for years and could be reached at a virtually identical internet address (with the suffix “.com”). Nevertheless, it redirected the confusingly similar address (with the suffix “.de” instead of “.com”) to its own law firm website.
In the court’s view, an overall assessment of several circumstances indicated that there was more to this than an ordinary domain strategy. There had already been disputes between the firms, the larger firm knew of the smaller firm’s established online presence, and clients did in fact mistakenly attribute the new address to the smaller firm. The risk of intercepting customers had thus also materialised in practice.
Even the acquisition of a confusingly similar domain solely for the purpose of subsequently offering it to the competitor for sale can constitute unfair obstruction, according to the OLG Köln. For the Senate, the indirect offer of sale was therefore not merely an indication but an element that, “in particular”, carried the overall assessment. Specifically, when asked to stop the redirect, a partner of the larger firm instead raised the possibility of selling the internet addresses. In the view of the Senate, this told against the explanation that the acquisition had merely been part of an “objectively comprehensible domain strategy”.
Taken as a whole, the obstruction therefore lay in the fact that the larger firm used an internet address that it knew to be confusingly similar in order to lead visitors to its own website, even though, on the basis of the name, these visitors could actually have been looking for the smaller firm. The actual misattributions showed that this created a concrete risk of intercepting potential clients of the smaller firm.
No Trade Mark Law Required: The UWG Provides Independent Protection
In domain disputes, trade mark law or the law on distinctive signs readily comes to mind – for example trade mark protection under § 14 MarkenG or the protection of business designations under §§ 5, 15 MarkenG. The right to a name under § 12 BGB may also play a role. However, protection does not necessarily have to start there. The OLG Köln expressly makes clear that, even beyond protection under the law on distinctive signs, targeted obstruction under § 4 no. 4 UWG can exist where a domain is registered or used in such a way that a competitor’s customers are thereby inappropriately intercepted.
The reason lies in the differing purposes of protection.
- Trade mark law and the law on distinctive signs do not provide general protection against every unfair way of dealing with a domain. They first require that a trade mark or business designation is legally protected and that the use complained of interferes with this scope of protection.
- § 4 no. 4 UWG by contrast asks whether the specific competitive conduct is unfair. What matters, therefore, is not only to whom a designation or domain is attributed under the law on distinctive signs, but whether a competitor is specifically obstructed by the way in which the domain is used.
Which claims the proprietor of a registered trade mark has in the event of infringement is shown in the article Trade Mark Infringement: Which Claims Trade Mark Proprietors Can Enforce.
Even where there is no enforceable claim under trade mark law or the law on distinctive signs, the use of a domain can be impermissible under competition law. However, the UWG is not a general substitute for missing trade mark protection. What is required is rather independently unfair conduct – in the present case in particular targeted obstruction by intercepting potential customers.
Even without a registered trade mark, protection under competition law can exist where the use of a domain specifically obstructs a competitor.
What Businesses Can Take Away from the Decision
For businesses, the decision shows above all that not every similar domain is problematic – what matters is how it is actually used. Anyone who acquires a competitor’s confusingly similar internet address and redirects it to their own website must expect this to be regarded as targeted obstruction under § 4 no. 4 UWG if potential customers are thereby intercepted. What is always decisive is the overall picture of the circumstances. In the Cologne case, what mattered in particular was knowledge of the competitor’s established online presence, the redirect to the firm’s own website, actual misattributions by clients and the later offer of sale.
In practice, this means two things: affected businesses should check whether a confusingly similar domain is being deliberately used to divert prospective customers to the competition. Conversely, when acquiring and redirecting domains that closely resemble a third party’s name, businesses should bear in mind that not only the domain itself but also its purpose, history and actual use can be relevant under competition law.
Remember: what matters is not only who owns a domain but how it is used in competition.
Are you facing unfair competition or have you received a cease-and-desist letter? We will review your claims and your defence – quickly and with a clear strategy.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is buying up a competitor’s domain contrary to competition law?
Not automatically. It becomes impermissible when the domain covertly redirects to one’s own website and the competitor’s customers are thereby deliberately intercepted.
Do you need a registered trade mark to take action against domain grabbing?
No. The protection follows from competition law (§ 4 no. 4, § 5 UWG) and does not require a registered trade mark. Businesses without any trade mark rights can also defend themselves.
What is a typo domain?
An address that deliberately comes close to a competitor’s domain – for example through a different extension or a typical spelling mistake – in order to intercept accidental visits (typosquatting).
When is a domain redirect permissible?
When the user is immediately and unmistakably informed that they have been redirected and are not on the page originally sought. If this notice is missing, there is a risk of the practice being assessed as unfair obstruction and misleading advertising.
