For the first time the Supreme Court has held that use of a well-known mark constituted unfair competition, even though the junior use was on completely different goods. The plaintiff, Hugo Boss AG, owned rights (including an International Registration based on an Austrian registration) to the famous BOSS trademark for menswear. In September 1995 (when the BOSS mark was already well-known in Austria) the defendant, Jackson International Trading Company & Co. KG, began marketing an energy drink in Austria under the trademark BOSS! Citing the TRIPS Agreement and the Austrian Unfair Competition Act, Hugo Boss AG sought an injunction. The plaintiff proved that 58 percent of those interviewed identified the BOSS mark with its products as did 92 percent of purchasers of high-quality menswear. It was also shown that 74 percent of all those interviewed had heard of the BOSS name. The trial court and first appeals court refused the injunction because of the differences in the respective goods.

The Supreme Court reversed these decisions, ruling that the Unfair Competition Act prohibited parties from promoting their goods by abusing another's reputation, even when the respective goods were dissimilar and non-competitive. In this case, Jackson's use of BOSS! sought to transfer quality expectations from Hugo Boss' menswear to their beverage, and the Court held that such a transfer could occur, even though the goods were different, simply because Hugo Boss' mark was well-known. Thus, Jackson's use of BOSS! placed the parties in competition, abused Hugo Boss' reputation and violated the Unfair Competition Act.