header-logo header-logo

10 December 2009
Issue: 7397 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

eBay counterfeit fine

The French courts have ordered eBay to pay Louis Vuitton owner, LVMH, €1.7m (£1.5m) for failing to prevent the sale of LVMH products on its website.

The French courts have ordered eBay to pay Louis Vuitton owner, LVMH, €1.7m (£1.5m) for failing to prevent the sale of LVMH products on its website.  
In July 2008, the French courts imposed an injunction barring the sale or purchase of any LVMH products on eBay, irrespective of their authenticity. eBay was fined €40m for not doing enough to prevent counterfeit goods being sold on its site. Since the injunction was imposed, however, more than 1,000 LVMH products have been found on eBay’s site.

eBay has argued that it complied with the ruling by deploying specialist software to try to prevent French consumers accessing LVMH products.
Pam Withers, a partner at intellectual property firm Marks & Clerk, says the ruling proves just how difficult it is to police brands online.

“The fact that LVMH is looking to stop the resale of even authentic products on eBay is a side issue, but one that demonstrates the willingness of luxury goods makers to take a heavy-handed approach and force a clampdown on sales in order to protect themselves from potential counterfeiting”, Withers adds.

“The real, underlying problem LVMH and other brand owners have with eBay remains the belief that the online marketplace is not doing enough to prevent fake goods being channelled through their sites.”
 

Issue: 7397 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll