Case law: Market operator can be made to stop stallholders selling counterfeit goods
Businesses letting space in physical marketplaces should ensure traders do not sell counterfeit branded goods from those premises (or otherwise infringe a third party's intellectual property rights) - or risk legal action by the brand owner.
This update was published in Legal Alert - August 2016
Legal Alert is a monthly checklist from Atom Content Marketing highlighting new and pending laws, regulations, codes of practice and rulings that could have an impact on your business.
A tenant of a market hall in Czechoslovakia sublet stalls to traders who were found to be selling counterfeit branded goods.
The European Court of Justice ruled that brand owners could require the tenant to stop its stallholders selling counterfeit goods, rather than having to take legal action against each individual trader separately. This was because the tenant was an 'intermediary' – someone whose services are used by others to infringe intellectual property rights - within the meaning of EU law.
The same reasoning applies to anyone who operates all or part of a physical marketplace, such as an indoor or outdoor market, a shopping mall or the like, including in the UK.
This ruling gives brand owners much the same rights against operators of physical marketplaces as their existing rights against operators of online marketplaces, such as Ebay, which is liable as an intermediary if its services are used to sell counterfeit goods, or otherwise breach someone else's intellectual property rights.
This decision benefits brand owners throughout the EU, enabling them to enforce their rights against one business rather than having to take legal action against multiple, often small and hard to trace, businesses.
- Businesses operating physical marketplaces should ensure that traders they authorise to operate from their premises do not sell counterfeit branded goods there (or do anything else that infringes another's intellectual property rights), or risk legal action against them by the brand owner
Case ref: Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC, Urban Trends Trading BV, Rado Uhren AG, Facton Kft., Lacoste SA, Burberry Ltd v Delta Center a.s. Case C 494/15
Disclaimer: This article from Atom Content Marketing is for general guidance only, for businesses in the United Kingdom governed by the laws of England. Atom Content Marketing, expert contributors and ICAEW (as distributor) disclaim all liability for any errors or omissions.
Copyright © Atom Content Marketing