In GRUR Prax 19/2025, Dr. Böckenholt discusses two recent decisions on the concept of competitors in competition law

Definition of the concept of competitors. Contexts that lead to diverging interpretations of the concept of competitors. Detailed practical advice.

In his article „Mitbewerber durch funktionale Substitution: echte Divergenzen zwischen EuGH und BGH oder Einzelfälle“ (‘Competitors through functional substitution: genuine divergences between the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) or individual cases’) in GRUR Prax, issue 19/2025, BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT partner and attorney at law Dr. Rudolf Böckenholt asks when a (sufficiently close) competitive relationship exists between two companies to be eligible for claims under the UWG (German Unfair Competition Act). In this context, the term ‘competitor’ must be defined under German and European law and it must be determined how broadly or narrowly this definition should be interpreted.

Against this background, Dr. Böckenholt compares a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 8 May 2025 (GRUR 2025, 1001 – HUK-COBURG/Check24 = GRUR-Prax 2025, 367 [Baronikians]) with the ruling of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) of 27 March 2025 (GRUR 2025, 589 – Fluggastrechteportal = GRUR-Prax 2025, 469 [Bärenfänger]). Both decisions deal with the status of competitors in digital contexts, but come to different conclusions: while the CJEU requires structural similarity of services, the Federal Court of Justice considers functional substitutability sufficient to establish a competitive relationship.

But what contexts lead to such divergent interpretations of the concept of competition? And what does this mean for legal advice? Dr. Böckenholt examines these questions in detail in his article and provides readers with comprehensive practical guidance.

The full article by Dr Rudolf Böckenholt is available for download in German to registered users of GRUR-Prax here.