- Amazon stores trademark infringing goods, which does not constitute a direct trademark infringement.
- Coty Germany sues Amazon for storing perfume bottles without consent.
- The European Court of Justice ruled that there is no infringement if there is no knowledge of the trademark infringement.
- A company must pursue the purpose of selling goods in order to be considered a trademark infringer.
- The Amazon companies did not offer any goods for sale and therefore did not infringe the trademark.
- Legislation allows legal action against intermediaries who allow illegal trademark use.
- The case emphasizes the need to protect intellectual property rights.
The mere storage of trademark infringing goods by Amazon in the context of its online marketplace (Amazon Marketplace) does not constitute a trademark infringement by Amazon.
A company that stores goods for a third party seller without knowledge of the trademark infringement does not use the trademark itself if it does not pursue the goal of offering the goods for sale or putting them on the market, as the seller does.
The German company Coty Germany, which sells perfumes, holds a license to the
Union trademark Davidoff. It accused two Amazon Group companies of infringing this trademark
by storing and shipping bottles of the perfume “Davidoff Hot Water” that third-party sellers had offered for sale on the
Amazon marketplace, even though these bottles had been placed on the Union market without its consent. Coty Germany has sued the two Amazon companies in German courts for injunctive relief.
The Federal Court of Justice asked the Court of Justice to interpret the rules on the EU trade mark. He wanted to know whether a company that stores trademark-infringing goods for a third-party supplier, without having knowledge of the trademark infringement, is itself using that trademark.
This was denied by the European Court of Justice. The ECJ replied to the BGH that an undertaking which stores the goods infringes the trademark only if, like the seller, it has the purpose of offering the goods for sale or putting them on the market.
In the present case, the Federal Court of Justice unambiguously pointed out that the
two Amazon companies in question neither offered the goods for sale
nor put them on the market themselves, but that the third party alone pursued this objective.
Consequently, the Amazon companies did not use the Davidoff trademark themselves.
However, the Court points out that other provisions of EU law,
in particular those relating to electronic commerce and the enforcement of intellectual property rights, allow legal action to be taken against an intermediary who has enabled an
economic operator to use a trade mark unlawfully.
