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

Évolution récentes autour de l’enveloppe Soleau

Cet article aborde l'évolution de l'enveloppe Soleau, un moyen de certifier la date de possession d'une invention. Depuis avril 2024, les dépôts papier ne sont plus acceptés, seuls les dépôts en ligne sont autorisés via le site de l'INPI. Nous précisons ici les modalités de dépôt, de conservation et de restitution de l'enveloppe, soulignant son rôle de preuve de possession antérieure, mais pas de propriété intellectuelle.

Par Adrien Metivet,
Évolution récentes autour de l’enveloppe Soleau
Blog Nova IP Hour

[Blog] Bilan de la procédure d’opposition à un brevet devant l’INPI

La mise en place de la loi PACTE il y a quatre ans a instauré une nouvelle procédure d'opposition des brevets devant l'INPI, marquant ainsi une évolution significative dans le paysage de la propriété industrielle en France. Récemment, l'INPI a publié un bilan détaillant les premières années de cette procédure, fournissant ainsi un aperçu des tendances et des résultats obtenus depuis son entrée en vigueur. Lire la suite

Par Rose-Marie Ehanno,
[Blog] Bilan de la procédure d’opposition à un brevet devant l’INPI
Blog Nova IP Hour

[Blog] Rétrospective sur l’impact de la pandémie du COVID-19 pour les contrefacteurs

L’Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques (OCDE) et l’Office de l'Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO) ont réalisé une étude conjointe sur le « Commerce illicite de contrefaçons dans le contexte de la COVID-19 ». Cette étude met notamment en lumière les facteurs qui ont favorisé la diffusion de produits contrefaisants. Lire la suite

Par Matthieu Boulard,
[Blog] Rétrospective sur l’impact de la pandémie du COVID-19 pour les contrefacteurs

Pour plus d'informations ou de conseils contactez-nous