• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Advocate General: Amazon Marketplace co-responsible for TM infringement

28. November 2019

Advocate General sees Amazon with its program “Shipping through Amazon” as jointly responsible for goods in this program and also for any trademark infringements via the Amazon platform. If the ECJ follows today’s GA opinion in the Coty vs. Amazon case, this would be a paradigm shift in online trading.

Amazon MarketplaceAccording to applicable regulations, the owner of the Union Trademark has the right to prohibit third parties from offering, placing on the market or owning goods for the aforementioned purposes in the course of business under the Trademark without his consent. But does this also apply to an online trading platform such as Amazon, which only acts as an intermediary for the goods?

Today, the Advocate General of the ECJ delivered his opinion in the Coty versus Amazon case on the perfume Davidoff Hot Water. The Advocate General therefore had to essentially answer whether the so-called third party must have knowledge of his own legal violation if one wants to enforce the right to a sales ban.

The facts

In the present case, which has so far been heard in Germany and referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), the BGH requests the interpretation of Art. 9 (2) (b) CTMR and Art. 9 (3) (b) UMV.

Coty is a perfume distributor and the proprietor of Union trade mark No 876874 DAVIDOFF. In 2014, a test buyer of the applicant ordered a perfume ‘Davidoff Hot Water EdT 60 ml’, offered by a third seller, from Amazon.de, through the website of the applicant. The sale was marked “Versand durch Amazon”.

On the website amazon.de, the defendant Amazon offers third parties the opportunity to place offers for sale in the “Amazon-Marketplace” section. The sales contracts for the goods sold in this way are concluded between the third party suppliers and the buyers. The third-party providers have the opportunity to participate in the “Shipping by Amazon” program, in which the goods are stored by companies of the Amazon Group and the shipping is carried out by external service providers.

As part of the “Shipping by Amazon” program, Amazon Marketplace had commissioned Defendant 3 (located in Graben in Germany and operating a warehouse there) to store the seller’s goods. Coty warned the seller on the grounds that the goods were not exhausted. The seller then issued a cease-and-desist declaration subject to penalty.

Now Coty asked Amazon MarketPlace to release all of the seller’s Davidoff Hot Water EdT 60 ml perfumes. Amazon reacted and sent a package with the “Shipment Reference” TT0034894719, which contained 30 of these perfumes – however, eleven of the 30 pieces sent came from the stock of another seller. Plaintiff Coty demanded therefore the publication of name and address of this other salesman. In vain, because Amazon announced that it could no longer be traced from which inventory the eleven pieces mentioned originated. Coty sued for trademark infringement pursuant to Art. 9 CTMR and Art. 9 UMV.

The Regional Court (19.01.2016 – 33 O 23145/14) dismissed the action and the plaintiff’s appeal was also unsuccessful (OLG München, 29.09.2016 – 29 U 745/16). The Court of Appeal found that the sales contracts concluded for the “Amazon Marketplace” offer were concluded between buyers and third parties, so that – contrary to the view of the appeal – the defendant did not actually sell the product itself.

For the BGH it is decisive for the revision whether a third party must have knowledge of its own infringement for the effective application of the corresponding provisions.

Advocate General sees Amazon Marketplace

In today’s Opinion, the Advocate General has heralded a paradigm shift for online commerce. According to the previous case law of the European Court of Justice, the operator does not already use the trademark if he displays it on his online marketplace in favour of a seller (judgment of July 2011, L’Oréal (C-324/09, EU:C:2011:474). However, this only applies as long as the online marketplace only provides the technical basis, the Advocate General stated in the Coty vs. Amazon case heard today.

For goods from the Amazon Marketplace programme and under the offer “Shipping by Amazon”, however, Amazon does not act as a neutral intermediary, but has the characteristics of active participation in the marketing of the goods, explained the Advocate General. Even a lack of knowledge of a trademark infringement in the context of this program does not necessarily release Amazon from liability. The Advocate General decided that Amazon’s substantial involvement in the marketing of the goods on the Amazon Marketplace means that Amazon can be required to exercise particular care in monitoring the legality of the traded goods.

This is all the more true as it could reasonably be expected that Amazon would provide the necessary means to uncover the alleged trademark infringement.

Amazon, together with the seller, had pursued the purpose of offering the disputed goods or placing them on the market. Therefore, the Advocate General in his Opinion recommends that the ECJ interpret Article 9(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 in such a way that

  • a person does not store trademark infringing goods for the purpose of offering or placing on the market on behalf of a third party (seller) if he or she is not aware of the infringement and the third party alone intends to offer the goods or place them on the market.
  • However, if that person is actively involved in the distribution of the goods under a programme which has the characteristics of the so-called “Shipping by Amazon” programme and to which the seller has acceded, he may be deemed to be storing the goods for the purpose of offering them for sale or placing them on the market.

Would you also like to protect your trademark or brand?

Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

 

 

 

Sources: 

Opinion of General Advocate:  Coty vs. Amazon EU:C:2019:1031

Image:

coffeebeanworks / www.pixabay.com / CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconAdvocate General,  Amazon,  Amazon Marketplace,  Coty,  Davidoff,  ignorance,  opinion,  Placing on the market,  trademark infringement

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Trademark Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

3. June 2024
What is the public allowed to know?

What is the public allowed to know?

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

15. February 2022
SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.