Businesses are increasingly leveraging online platforms like Amazon for product sales. However, this convenience can lead to trademark infringement issues, raising questions about liability. In the case of Louboutin vs. Amazon, the renowned French designer clashes with the e-commerce giant over the unauthorized display of iconic red-soled shoes. Let’s take a closer look to examine the legal nuances and implications for online marketplaces in trademark law.
Louboutin, famous for its trademarked red soles, filed a case against Amazon, alleging trademark infringement. Amazon, as an online marketplace, facilitates third-party sellers, some of whom advertise red-soled shoes without Louboutin's consent. The key legal question revolves around whether Amazon, beyond being a facilitator, can be held liable for trademark infringement.
LOUBOUTIN GOES TO COURT
The dispute reached the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), with prior legal action taken by Louboutin in Belgium and Luxembourg. The CJEU was tasked with clarifying whether Amazon's role as an online marketplace operator constituted legal 'use' of the infringing sign.
Trademark proprietors seek to hold online marketplaces responsible for trademark infringement. Amazon, asserting its role as a neutral platform, argues against liability for products sold on its marketplace. The central issue is whether Louboutin can hold Amazon accountable for trademark infringement in this specific case.
IS AMAZON A MARKETPLACE OR AN ACTIVE SELLER?
The crux of the matter lies in interpreting the term 'use' in trademark law. Amazon contends that it merely facilitates the display of distinguishing signs by third-party sellers, emphasizing the lack of active involvement in commercial communication. Previous case law sets a precedent where the operator of the online marketplace did not sell products under its name.
Unlike previous cases, Amazon presents its own sales offers alongside third-party products. The company's active role, including answering consumer questions and handling shipping, blurs the line between facilitator and seller. This involvement creates a consumer perception that Amazon is the actual user of the infringing sign, challenging the notion of a neutral online marketplace.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
The CJEU ruled that Amazon's practices extend beyond those of a neutral online marketplace, potentially setting a precedent for liability. However, the practical application of this judgment in national cases remains to be seen, as the distinction between facilitator and active participant evolves in the ever-changing landscape of online commerce.
-----
This article is written by trademark and design attorney Timo Buijs.
Businesses are increasingly leveraging online platforms like Amazon for product sales. However, this convenience can lead to trademark infringement issues, raising questions about liability. In the case of Louboutin vs. Amazon, the renowned French designer clashes with the e-commerce giant over the unauthorized display of iconic red-soled shoes. Let’s take a closer look to examine the legal nuances and implications for online marketplaces in trademark law.
Louboutin, famous for its trademarked red soles, filed a case against Amazon, alleging trademark infringement. Amazon, as an online marketplace, facilitates third-party sellers, some of whom advertise red-soled shoes without Louboutin's consent. The key legal question revolves around whether Amazon, beyond being a facilitator, can be held liable for trademark infringement.
LOUBOUTIN GOES TO COURT
The dispute reached the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), with prior legal action taken by Louboutin in Belgium and Luxembourg. The CJEU was tasked with clarifying whether Amazon's role as an online marketplace operator constituted legal 'use' of the infringing sign.
Trademark proprietors seek to hold online marketplaces responsible for trademark infringement. Amazon, asserting its role as a neutral platform, argues against liability for products sold on its marketplace. The central issue is whether Louboutin can hold Amazon accountable for trademark infringement in this specific case.
IS AMAZON A MARKETPLACE OR AN ACTIVE SELLER?
The crux of the matter lies in interpreting the term 'use' in trademark law. Amazon contends that it merely facilitates the display of distinguishing signs by third-party sellers, emphasizing the lack of active involvement in commercial communication. Previous case law sets a precedent where the operator of the online marketplace did not sell products under its name.
Unlike previous cases, Amazon presents its own sales offers alongside third-party products. The company's active role, including answering consumer questions and handling shipping, blurs the line between facilitator and seller. This involvement creates a consumer perception that Amazon is the actual user of the infringing sign, challenging the notion of a neutral online marketplace.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
The CJEU ruled that Amazon's practices extend beyond those of a neutral online marketplace, potentially setting a precedent for liability. However, the practical application of this judgment in national cases remains to be seen, as the distinction between facilitator and active participant evolves in the ever-changing landscape of online commerce.
----- This article is written by trademark and design attorney Timo Buijs.