At a time when Amazon is fielding large spikes in demand amidst the coronavirus pandemic, the online retail platform will welcome the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) received on 2 April 2020.
At a time when Amazon is fielding large spikes in demand amidst the coronavirus pandemic, the online retail platform will welcome the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) received on 2 April 2020.
The ruling clarifies that online platforms do not infringe trade marks by merely storing third party sellers’ infringing goods which they are not aware are infringing. The CJEU concluded that “a person [such as Amazon] who, on behalf of a third party, stores goods which infringe trade mark rights, without being aware of that infringement, must be regarded as not stocking those goods in order to offer them or put them on the market for the purposes of [trade mark legislation], if that person does not itself pursue those aims”. It also noted that “[Amazon] have not themselves offered the goods for sale or put them on the market [and]… it is the third party alone who intends to offer the goods or put them on the market. It follows that [Amazon] do not themselves use [the Davidoff mark] in their own commercial communication”.
The dispute, referred to the CJEU in 2018, originated with a claim by the German branch of the US cosmetics company, Coty, that various Amazon Group entities had infringed its trade mark rights by stocking unlicensed Davidoff perfume on behalf of third party merchants who intended to sell these products. Coty had argued that Amazon, when enabling third party sellers to place advertisements on the Marketplace and in the context of the “Fulfilled by Amazon” scheme, should stop stocking or dispatching Davidoff branded perfumes where these are not sold with the consent of the trade mark holder (Coty). Amazon countered that it could not be held responsible for trade mark infringements by the third party sellers using its platform, where it was neither selling the goods, nor aware of the infringements.
The CJEU’s answer to the narrow question put to it by the German Court is unsurprising in light of its earlier caselaw which requires direct or indirect “active” involvement for infringement. However, this is far from the end of debate on the extent to which such sales platforms can be liable for the infringing sales made through them. Coty sought further clarity on this issue asking “whether the activity of the operator of an online marketplace in circumstances such as those in these proceedings falls within the scope of Article 14(1) of [the E-commerce Directive] and, if not, whether such an operator must be regarded as an ‘infringer’ as referred to in Article 11 of [the IP Enforcement Directive]”.
Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive provides that an information society service can be liable for information stored at the request of a service user if it is given actual knowledge of the illegal activity and does not act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the information (here such information would be the infringing advertisement). Article 11 of the IP Enforcement Directive provides that where there has been a finding of infringement “the judicial authorities may issue against the infringer an injunction aimed at prohibiting the continuation of the infringement”.
Although not referenced by Coty, Article 14 continues “Member States shall also ensure that rightholders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right”. In the UK, the Supreme Court held in the Cartier decision that the rightholder is required to indemnify the intermediary for the costs of implementing such injunctions. The opposite position has been reached by a German Regional Court but, in Germany, action cannot be taken against an intermediary until action has been unsuccessful against the actual infringer or has no chance of success. This may explain why Coty appeared keen for the Amazon companies to be treated as infringers themselves rather than mere intermediaries.
Although the CJEU necessarily refused to address Coty’s question, as it was not asked by the referring Court, it did acknowledge that “where an economic operator has enabled another operator to make use of the trade mark [in issue], its role must… be examined from the point of view of rules of law other than [the EU Trade Mark Regulation]” inferring it recognised Coty’s question could be relevant to the determination of such disputes. The CJEU also stressed the legal position would have been different, had the perfume bottles been stocked on the platform’s own behalf, or had the platform – having been unable to identify the third-party seller - nevertheless chosen to offer or put on the market the perfume bottles themselves.
Co-authored by Bonita Trimmer and Sébastien Ferrière.
National law firm Browne Jacobson has advised long standing retail client, Wilko on the sale and leaseback of its Nottinghamshire distribution centre in Worksop to logistics specialist DHL for £48m.
In the ongoing complex litigation between Optis Cellular Technology LLC and Apple Inc., the Court of Appeal ([2022] EWCA Civ 1411) has upheld the High Court’s findings that implementers of standard-essential patents (SEPs) cannot refuse to accept a FRAND license and continue activities in the meantime which constitute infringement: that party must commit to accept a court-determined license if it wishes to avoid an injunction.
Law firm Browne Jacobson is pleased to announce that Suzanne Harlow has been appointed Non-Executive Director of its Retail, Consumer & Logistics sector.
Earlier in the year a number of fashion retailers, boldly announced the introduction of a charging fee for returning any product purchased via their online store. Yet, despite this commercial, and perhaps somewhat controversial decision, at least one major fashion giant that adopted this approach has recorded ‘historic highs’ in its September profits. Browne Jacobson partner, Cat Driscoll who heads up the firm’s commercial team in Manchester and is also head of its Fashion & Beauty sector discusses whether this change has put the average consumer off and whether the days of free returns are long gone.
Every AI will have its own terms of use. DALL·E 2’s Terms of Use dated 3 November 2022 specify that as between a user and Open AI, a user owns their prompts and uploads. Open AI also assigns to the user all rights in any images generated by DALL·E 2 for that user (subject to the user complying with those Terms of Use, and to a licence to use inputs and output to develop and improve the services).
This article is the second in a series to help firms take a practical approach to complying with the ‘cross-cutting rules’ within the new ‘Consumer Duty’ (CD) framework. The article summarises what it seems the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is seeking to achieve from the applicable rules (section 2 below) and potential complications arising from legal considerations (section 3).
A deepfake of Bruce Willis is advertising Russian mobile phones. Many great artistic and metaphysical questions are raised by this performance. However, this article is going to look at the intellectual property law implications, from a UK perspective.
The fashion industry has a mountain to climb when it comes to sustainability. More than 8% of greenhouse gas emissions come from the apparel and footwear industries, and approaching three-fifths of all clothing ends up in incinerators or landfill within a year of being made.
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
The Chancellor’s recent mini-budget provided a significant announcement for business as it was confirmed that the off-payroll working rules (known as “IR35”) put in place for public and private sector businesses from 2017 and 2021 will be scrapped from April 2023.
Browne Jacobson has bolstered its commercial practice in the UK with the appointment of commercial contracts and international trade specialist, Emma Roake, into its City-based London team.
The Court of Appeal overturned the “fire and re-hire” injunction, finding that there was nothing in the express contractual provisions preventing Tesco from giving the notice to terminate employment in the usual way.
As has been widely reported this week, some 3,000 UK workers are taking part in a six month trial to assess the viability of a four-day working week without any reduction in their normal pay.
Amongst the measures being introduced are new rules on online reviews, price reduction promotions, enhanced rights for free digital consumers, GDPR-style fines and information requirements on online markets.
In anticipation of the adoption of the Building Safety Bill, our specialist compliance and regulatory team will give an overview of the measures proposed in the Bill.
From 6 April 2022, right to work checks on all migrant or settled prospective employees must be online and checks on British or Irish nationals will be manual (free) or digital (charged for).
The Presidents of the Employment Tribunals England and Wales and Scotland have issued a new road map for 2022-23, providing an update on the resourcing challenges faced by employment tribunals and the steps put in place to address these.
The Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022 was finally passed yesterday (24 March) and comes into force immediately.
Browne Jacobson has broadened its national construction and engineering offering with the appointment of construction partner Zoe Stollard into its Birmingham office.
Browne Jacobson’s national IP lawyers are celebrating after being ranked in the 2022 World Trademark Review (WTR) 1000 - the independent guide which recognises leading trade mark experts across key jurisdictions around the globe.
The Government appears set to announce plans on ‘living with Covid to restore freedom’. With the success of the retail and hospitality sector key to recovery, what protections will be on offer to tenants to deal with Covid-19 rent arrears?
In Nissan v Passi, the High Court recently considered the issue of an employee retaining confidential documents belonging to his former employer in the context of the employer’s application for an injunction seeking the return of such documents from the employee.
The levelling up white paper sets out a set of 12 priority ‘missions’ to be pursued by national and local government in the years to come. With measures covering regeneration, communities, connectivity, education, R&D, employment, and health.
The High Court has granted an injunction against Tesco preventing the dismissal and re-engagement (‘fire and rehire’) of employees in an attempt to remove a contractual entitlement to enhanced payment terms.
Browne Jacobson’s corporate finance lawyers have advised omnichannel prestige beauty retailer Sephora on its acquisition of Feelunique.
Our corporate finance team have advised the Myers Family Office, on its purchase of Vian Marketing, the holding company for leading stand-up paddleboard business, Tushingham Sails which is best known in the market for its Red Paddle Co brand.
All of the ‘big four’ supermarkets have seen equal pay claims submitted. The majority of these cases involve workers arguing that they have not been paid equally compared to distribution centres of the business.
Following on from our recent article on the release of the updated Code of Practice for dealing with commercial rent arrears that have accrued throughout the pandemic, we continue to highlight what the overall principles seek to ensure - fairness and proportionality for both landlords and tenants across each step of the arbitration process.
In July this year, four years to the month after its introduction into UK law in the Supreme Court’s seminal judgment in Actavis v Eli Lilly, the court handed down its latest decision applying the ‘doctrine of equivalents’.
The Court of Appeal has held that an AI machine cannot be named as the ‘inventor’ of a patent, because it is not a ‘natural person’, and is therefore also incapable of transferring the right in that patent to a person.
In Stuart Delivery Ltd v Augustine, the Court of Appeal was asked to consider the principles governing when the ability to appoint a substitute negated the obligation to personally perform work.
No retail and logistics specialist will have been surprised by the news that ecommerce businesses, responding to high customer demand during the pandemic, have contributed to a jump in warehouse lettings, or that one of the ecommerce disrupters within the retail sector has been rapid grocery delivery services.
Browne Jacobson’s national IP team is celebrating after again securing Tier 1 rankings in the East and West Midlands region and maintaining its Tier 3 status in London in the latest edition of Legal 500.
