• Menu
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

FREE 20 MINUTES CONSULTATION for Technology and Media Companies – Find out more

Call us today  0131 222 2939

  • E-mail
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

BTO Becreative

BTO's Music & Creative Industries Team

  • HOME
  • EXPERTISE
  • TEAM
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT US
  • Search
  • HOME
  • EXPERTISE
  • TEAM
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT US
  • Search

Mobile Menu

Call Us Now

Find out how our law firm can help you.

0131 222 2939

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Louboutin v Amazon – If the shoe fits

February 16, 2023 //  by BTO Becreative Team//  Leave a Comment

The recent decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Louboutin v Amazon raises a number of different issues for platforms facilitating sales by third party vendors.

The decision represents a significant shift in the approach to the liability of intermediaries for trade mark infringement and, unusually, did not follow the opinion of the Advocate General issued in June of last year.

While the decision is a post-Brexit decision of the EU court and is not binding on the UK courts, the nature of trade mark law and intellectual property law generally in the UK remains closely bound with Europe and the ruling is likely to influence decisions in the UK.

Online use of a trade mark

The case concerns proceedings raised by the luxury shoe maker, Christian Louboutin, against three Amazon group companies concerning the alleged unlawful use of a registered EU trade owned by Louboutin in connection with the sale of identical products (red soled shoes) not manufactured by Christian Louboutin.

When proceedings were raised, earlier case law indicated that intermediary websites which simply provided a platform for sales by third parties, would generally be found liable for any infringement by those third parties and simply displaying the adverts of third parties (which adverts may be infringing) would not give rise to liability for the platform.

However, in a departure from previous case law, the court held that by displaying on its website a mark identical to that owned by Louboutin, in connection with the sale of red soled shoes (by virtue of displaying the third party adverts) that action could be attributed to Amazon. The role played by Amazon was, therefore, such that it could not be considered to be a mere website host or intermediary. This was particularly evident as Amazon actively provides assistance to third party sellers, including support as to how best to present their offers.

Acting as an intermediary

The court did not accept Amazon’s argument that use of the trade mark in this way could not be attributed to it and that Amazon’s ancillary services offered to its third party sellers did not justify the third party’s offerings being regarded as forming part of Amazon’s commercial operations.

The fact, Amazon argued, that a service provider creates the technical conditions necessary for the use of a mark which is identical to a registered trade mark and receives payment for doing that, does not mean that the service provider itself makes use of the registered trade mark. However, in its judgment the court explained that in assessing whether the trade mark had been used for the purposes of establishing infringement, it was necessary to assess whether a well informed and reasonably observant user of the website would establish a link between the website operator’s business and the mark in question. If so, infringement would occur.

The court went on to explain that online adverts must be presented in such a way as to enable a well informed and reasonably observant user to easily distinguish between offers originating from the website operator and from third party sellers.

The court held that it would be difficult for users to make a clear distinction where the operator of an online sales website incorporating an online market place (such as Amazon) uses its logo on both the website and all adverts displayed on the website.

The court also commented on the nature and scope of the services provided by operators like Amazon, for example, dealing with the questions from users, are also likely to give the impression to a well-informed and reasonably observant user that those goods are being marketed by that operator on its own behalf.

What now?

It is important to note that a finding of infringement was not established in the case against Amazon. Instead, the CJEU set out the parameters within which infringement will occur if it is established that users are likely to be confused.

The case has now been referred back to the national courts which sought an initial ruling from the CJEU to determine the issue on the evidence. However, the test which has been set down by the CJEU sets out the conditions for online sales platforms to be found liable by virtue of acting as an online marketplace, even if they have not directly placed a registered trade mark on their website.

The standard of care required by these operators has been raised significantly and will undoubtedly require some platforms to undertake a greater degree of policing the content which is used on their websites.

The Intellectual Property & Technology Team at BTO Solicitors LLP has considerable experience in IP infringement claims and advising service providers and brand owners. For further information please get in touch.

Lynn Richmond, Partner lyr@bto.co.uk / 0131 222 2939

Category: Fashion Industry, Intellectual Property, Trade MarksTag: amazon, brexit, CJEU, fashion industry, Intellectual Property, intermediary websites, IP, logos, louboutin, technology, third party vendors, trade mark infringement, trade mark law

You May Also Be Interested In:

Louboutin v Amazon – If the shoe fits

Getty Images’ dispute with Stability AI may provide welcome clarity on the legal balance between technological innovation and human creativity

“More Valuable than Gold or Oil” – Commercialising your Copyright

Buyer Beware – Copyright and NFTs

Keeping Secrets – The Benefits of Good Confidentiality Agreements

Hook, line and sinker – How Ed Sheeran won in court.

The publishing industry breathes a collective sigh of relief as UK Government maintains UK’s copyright exhaustion regime – for now at least

fashion audience clapping

Are clothing designs too lacking in RAW originality and creativity to be afforded copyright protection?

The-Show-Must-Go-On-v2

“The Show Must Go On”

View our brochure below or download it here.
Previous Post: « Getty Images’ dispute with Stability AI may provide welcome clarity on the legal balance between technological innovation and human creativity

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Primary Sidebar

Keep Up To Date

If you would like to receive BTO BeCreative updates by email CLICK HERE (opens a new email).  See our Privacy Notice for information on how we process your data.

RECENT POSTS

Louboutin v Amazon – If the shoe fits

The recent decision of the Court of Justice of the European …

Getty Images’ dispute with Stability AI may provide welcome clarity on the legal balance between technological innovation and human creativity

In January, stock photo provider Getty Images (“Getty”) …

“More Valuable than Gold or Oil” – Commercialising your Copyright

It is reported (25 January 2023) that pop mega-star Justin …

Buyer Beware – Copyright and NFTs

Blockchain, cryptocurrency and NFTs can be divisive. For some …

Keeping Secrets – The Benefits of Good Confidentiality Agreements

Confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) often get …

Footer

Our Team

  • Paul Motion
  • Lynn Richmond
  • Lauren McFarlane

Our Offices

BTO Solicitors LLP
Edinburgh: 0131 222 2939
One Edinburgh Quay
Edinburgh, EH3 9QG
Glasgow: 0141 221 8012
48 St. Vincent Street
Glasgow, G2 5HS

Our Expertise

Find out more about our legal services to the creative industries.
Learn More →

Newsletter

Sign up to receive BTO BeCreative updates by email CLICK HERE (opens a new email).   See our Privacy Notice for information on how we process your data.

  • E-mail
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

© 2023 BTO Solicitors LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Notice · Cookie Policy · Terms & Conditions· Anti-Money Laundering Policy

Manage Cookie Consent
We use cookies to optimize our website and our service.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}