The Paris Court of Appeal confirmed that eBay was liable for a counterfeiting conviction for selling on its website imitation Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessey (LVMH) products between 2001 and 2006.
EBay’s actions were in violation of the authorized selective distribution networks of LVMH. Other brand names mentioned by the decision included Christian Dior, Guerlain, Givenchy, and Kenzo perfume.
The current ruling verifies the decision by the Paris Commercial Court on June 30, 2008, which established the principles of eBay’s liability for engaging in the sale of counterfeit products as well as products reserved for selective distribution. This decision also dismissed eBay’s claim for exemption on the grounds that it was acting merely as a provider of hosting services.
Moreover, the court concluded that eBay was guilty from direct or indirect violation of selective distribution networks in the future.
The court’s decision ordered eBay Inc. and eBay AG to pay penalties amounting to $7 million. This amount falls short of the original $49 million in damages sought by LVMH.
“LVMH welcomes the establishment of this case law, which constitutes a major step in the further protection of consumers,” said the world’s leading luxury goods group—which owns brands such as Givenchy, Fendi, Emilio Pucci, and Marc Jacobs—in a statement.
Both sides appeared content with the decision, given that eBay France General Director Yohan Ruso considered it a “major victory for eBay and the French consumers.”
The significance of the latest court ruling validates the 2008 ruling against eBay from two angles—faulting the online auction company for a lack of initiative in counteracting any fake goods from being sold on its site, as well as ruling that eBay was responsible for the illicit sale of perfumes from the LVMH range. Such action jeopardizes LVMH’s exclusive network whereby only “selective distribution” is able to distribute its products.
High profile fashion labels such as LVMH capitalize on the exclusivity of its products and selects outlets where they can be purchased. Therefore, it is a great task to debate the onus of responsibility on imitation products.
Another online company that has been penalized about its lack of protection is Google. LVMH was trying to protect its brands online, however a Paris court in 2005 ordered Google to pay around $260,000 to Louis Vuitton for breach of trademark. In that case, Google had to stop displaying advertisements for LVMH’s rivals when Web users typed Vuitton’s name into the search engine said Bloomberg.
EBay’s actions were in violation of the authorized selective distribution networks of LVMH. Other brand names mentioned by the decision included Christian Dior, Guerlain, Givenchy, and Kenzo perfume.
The current ruling verifies the decision by the Paris Commercial Court on June 30, 2008, which established the principles of eBay’s liability for engaging in the sale of counterfeit products as well as products reserved for selective distribution. This decision also dismissed eBay’s claim for exemption on the grounds that it was acting merely as a provider of hosting services.
Moreover, the court concluded that eBay was guilty from direct or indirect violation of selective distribution networks in the future.
The court’s decision ordered eBay Inc. and eBay AG to pay penalties amounting to $7 million. This amount falls short of the original $49 million in damages sought by LVMH.
“LVMH welcomes the establishment of this case law, which constitutes a major step in the further protection of consumers,” said the world’s leading luxury goods group—which owns brands such as Givenchy, Fendi, Emilio Pucci, and Marc Jacobs—in a statement.
Both sides appeared content with the decision, given that eBay France General Director Yohan Ruso considered it a “major victory for eBay and the French consumers.”
The significance of the latest court ruling validates the 2008 ruling against eBay from two angles—faulting the online auction company for a lack of initiative in counteracting any fake goods from being sold on its site, as well as ruling that eBay was responsible for the illicit sale of perfumes from the LVMH range. Such action jeopardizes LVMH’s exclusive network whereby only “selective distribution” is able to distribute its products.
High profile fashion labels such as LVMH capitalize on the exclusivity of its products and selects outlets where they can be purchased. Therefore, it is a great task to debate the onus of responsibility on imitation products.
Another online company that has been penalized about its lack of protection is Google. LVMH was trying to protect its brands online, however a Paris court in 2005 ordered Google to pay around $260,000 to Louis Vuitton for breach of trademark. In that case, Google had to stop displaying advertisements for LVMH’s rivals when Web users typed Vuitton’s name into the search engine said Bloomberg.
Friends Read Free