Goodle Adwords - L'Oreal vs eBay- Marketplaces liable for counterfeit goods

After the first ruling on the use of brands such as Google Adwords, there is now a second important ruling relating to market places. L'Oreal filed a case against eBay, because counterfeit products were offered on this website. The European Court has indicated that eBay (and other electronic marketplaces on the Internet) is liable if it actively promotes the sale or if they do not immediately remove ad-aware if a complaint is filed.  

Hiding behind the e-commerce directive is not possible and that's good news for brand owners.
The verdict, however, works both ways. On the one hand sites are allowed to advertise using third party trademarks, but they must also have a good take-down procedure in order to report violations. On the other hand companies are expected to adopt active policies to tackle online counterfeit (for example web monitoring).
 

internet-online-branding



Latest news
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
Competitor registers domain name
Our Clients
Follow Abcor
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP quiz Trademarks

Puma is one of the bigger sports and lifestyle brands in the world. The core-business is the design, development and sale of (sports) shoes, (sports) clothing and accessories. In 1960, Puma registered an international trademark for a device designed in 1958: the formstrip. Since then, Puma has registered approximately 90 formstrip trademarks with validity in the Benelux or the European Union. Puma claims that this is a serial mark. Monshoe is a wholesaler of women's shoes and related products. The company designs and develops Monshoe shoes which it largely markets itself. Monshoe sells its women's shoes under the brands Shoecolate and Pearlz. The shoe Shoecolate is offered in various colour combinations. Puma claims that Monshoe infringes its well-known formstrip trademark. Monshoe contradicts this and states that the average consumer will not perceive the device of Monshoe on the sneakers as a trademark. And if the public will recognize a trademark in the decoration, it will not make the connection to Puma. According to Monshoe, the formstrip logo is not a well-known trademark within the meaning of the BVIE and the UMVo. There is no likelihood of confusion because the sign does not or hardly evoke any association with Puma among the public. In light of the above, who is right? Does this constitute decorative use or linking to a well-known trademark?