Online trademark infringement: Amazon to blame for trade in fake Louboutins suggests CJEU

Par Novagraaf Team,
Fake Louboutin shoes

In its December 2022 preliminary ruling, the Court of Justice of the EU found that Amazon’s practice of displaying ads for counterfeit Christian Louboutin shoes makes the e-tailer liable for online trademark infringement. Savvy Kaushal provides a summary of the case.

The tricky question of who is responsible for enforcing trademark rights on online marketplaces, such as Amazon.com, came before the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in December last year. Iconic shoe brand Christian Louboutin had sued the global e-tailer for trademark infringement in Belgium and Luxembourg after discovering that Amazon.com frequently displayed adverts for counterfeit copies of its red-soled shoes.

In its claim, Louboutin alleged that Amazon's advertising services could lead consumers to believe that the adverts came from Amazon, rather than third-party sellers. The case was referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling to determine whether and when Amazon is directly liable for trademark infringement resulting from third-party advertising.

Online trademark infringement: Factors to consider

In its ruling, the CJEU provided a list of factors to consider when determining whether the operator of an online marketplace is liable for trademark infringement. These factors include:

  • how the adverts are presented; 
  • whether the average consumer might be led to believe that the operator is marketing the infringing goods in its own name and on its own account; and 
  • whether that operator makes a clear distinction between the marketplace’s services and the use of the trademark for commercial purposes. 

The CJEU found that Amazon consistently presented adverts for the shoes on Amazon.com using its own logo, which could lead consumers to believe that the products were marketed for and by Amazon. Moreover, the fact that Amazon provides additional services to third-party sellers, such as responding to user enquiries and handling returns, contributed to the appearance of a link between Amazon and the products being sold on Amazon.com.

Although the CJEU did not conclude that Amazon is guilty of trademark infringement (since such a definitive conclusion is never given in a preliminary ruling), the ruling does make online marketplace operators like Amazon more susceptible to direct liability for third-party sales of counterfeit products on their platforms. It will now be for the national courts in Belgium and Luxembourg to decide whether Amazon is guilty of online trademark infringement.

Online trademark infringement: How and when to act

Crucially, the CJEU ruling should also make it simpler for brand owners to pursue online trademark infringement claims against large operators such as Amazon, as opposed to having to pursue individual counterfeiters as is the case currently. 

Online marketplaces that use hybrid models, such as Amazon.com, may need to reconsider their website layouts to ensure that their own products are clearly distinguished from those sold by third-party sellers. This will enable customers to recognise the source of advertisements and the actual seller of the products.

In the meantime, brand owners are advised to update their online brand protection strategies to make best use of this opportunity to enforce their trademark rights on e-marketplace platforms. For advice and assistance, please speak to your Novagraaf attorney or contact our specialist brand protection team below. 

Savvy Kaushal works in the Knowledge Management department at Novagraaf Amsterdam.

Insights liés

Articles

Absence de risque de confusion entre des marques pharmaceutiques

Novartis a demandé la nullité de la marque BREZTRI d'AstraZeneca sur la base de ses marques antérieures ONBREZ, BREZILIZER et BREEZHALER. Le 15 mars 2023, le Tribunal a rendu sa décision dans l'affaire Novartis AG contre Office de l'Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO) (affaire T-175/22) et constate l'absence de risque de confusion entre des marques pharmaceutiques contenant l'élément "brez"/"breez".

Par Florence Chapin,
Absence de risque de confusion entre des marques pharmaceutiques
Nova IP Hour

JUB - Informations sur les pratiques et procédures devant l'OEB en matière de brevets européens à effet unitaire

JUB - Retrouvez le guide pratique pour le paiement des taxes, des frais et des prix en rapport avec le brevet unitaire. Publié par l'OEB, ce guide a pour but d'accompagner les utilisateurs en les aidant à trouver toutes les informations pertinentes relatives au brevet unitaire et à se familiariser avec les nouvelles dispositions en temps utile.

Par Matthieu Boulard,
JUB - Informations sur les pratiques et procédures devant l'OEB en matière de brevets européens à effet unitaire
Nova IP Hour

Polynésie française : Prolongation de la procédure de reconnaissance des titres de propriété industrielle

Les titres de propriété industrielle déposés, renouvelés ou prorogés auprès de l’INPI ont cessé de produire effet sur le territoire de la Polynésie française depuis 2004. Afin de palier à ce défaut de protection, il existe une procédure de reconnaissance optionnelle pour les titres de propriété industrielle déposés, renouvelés ou prorogés auprès de l’INPI entre le 3 mars 2004 et le 31 janvier 2014. Cette procédure de reconnaissance optionnelle initialement ouverte jusqu’au 1er septembre 2023 est maintenant ouverte jusqu’au 31 décembre 2024 inclus. Lire la suite

Par Marie Houppe,
Polynésie française : Prolongation de la procédure de reconnaissance des titres de propriété industrielle

Pour plus d'informations ou de conseils contactez-nous

Confidentialité et cookies

Pour fournir la meilleure expérience possible aux visiteurs du site Web, Novagraaf utilise des cookies. En cliquant sur "Accepter" ou en continuant d’utiliser le site, vous acceptez notre politique de confidentialité, y compris la politique en matière de cookies.