Counterfeit Goods Online
What Are Counterfeit Goods?
Counterfeit goods are products made to imitate genuine branded items with the intent to deceive consumers. These goods often bear fake trademarks, logos, or packaging to resemble legitimate brands.
Examples include:
Fake luxury bags (e.g., Louis Vuitton, Gucci)
Counterfeit electronics (e.g., Apple chargers)
Fake pharmaceuticals or cosmetics
Imitation software or digital goods
Online Sale of Counterfeit Goods
The digital age has made it easier for counterfeiters to reach global markets using platforms like:
Marketplaces: Amazon, eBay, Alibaba
Social Media: Instagram, Facebook Marketplace
Independent E-commerce Websites
Online anonymity, low barriers to entry, and complex global supply chains make enforcement difficult.
Legal Issues Involved
Key areas of law:
Trademark Infringement
Copyright Violation
Consumer Protection Law
Cyber Law / IT Law
Platform Liability / Intermediary Liability
๐ Major Case Laws โ Detailed Analysis
Below are six important legal cases involving counterfeit goods in the context of online sales:
1. Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc. (U.S. โ 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, 2010)
๐น Facts:
Tiffany sued eBay, alleging that eBay was liable for trademark infringement because counterfeit Tiffany jewelry was being sold on its platform.
๐น Legal Issue:
Whether an online marketplace can be held liable for counterfeit items sold by third parties.
๐น Decision:
The court ruled in favor of eBay, holding that:
eBay was not directly selling the counterfeit items.
eBay had systems in place to detect and remove counterfeit goods.
The burden lies on the trademark holder (Tiffany) to monitor and report infringing items.
๐น Significance:
This landmark case established that online platforms are not automatically liable for counterfeit goods unless they have "knowledge" and fail to act.
2. Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc. (U.S. District Court, N.D. California, 2009)
๐น Facts:
Louis Vuitton sued a web hosting company (Akanoc) whose servers hosted websites selling counterfeit LV products.
๐น Legal Issue:
Whether service providers (like web hosts) can be held liable for supporting counterfeit sales.
๐น Decision:
Louis Vuitton won.
The court found that the web host had knowledge of the infringing websites and failed to act, making them contributorily liable.
๐น Significance:
Set a precedent that non-selling intermediaries (like hosts or ISPs) can be liable if they knowingly support counterfeiters.
3. Christian Louboutin SAS v. Amazon.com Inc. (Court of Justice of the European Union - CJEU, 2020)
๐น Facts:
Louboutin sued Amazon for allowing third-party sellers to list counterfeit red-soled shoes on its platform.
๐น Legal Issue:
Can Amazon be considered as using the trademark if it advertises and stores third-party counterfeit goods?
๐น Decision:
The CJEU held that Amazon can be liable if it plays an active role in the marketing and delivery process.
๐น Significance:
Clarified that platforms like Amazon, when actively involved (advertising, storing, delivering), may be liable for counterfeit sales.
4. Skullcandy Inc. v. Shri Shyam Telecom & Ors. (Delhi High Court, India, 2015)
๐น Facts:
Skullcandy filed a suit against an Indian retailer selling fake Skullcandy headphones online.
๐น Legal Issue:
Trademark infringement and unauthorized sale of counterfeit products online.
๐น Decision:
Court granted permanent injunction against the defendants.
Awarded damages and cost to Skullcandy.
Emphasized online platforms must act upon complaints about counterfeit goods.
๐น Significance:
This Indian case established the importance of brand protection and proactive legal enforcement in the digital era.
5. Cartier International AG & Montblanc-Simplo GmbH v. British Telecommunications Plc (UK, High Court, 2014)
๐น Facts:
Luxury brands asked BT (a major ISP) to block access to websites selling counterfeit goods.
๐น Legal Issue:
Whether ISPs can be forced to block access to infringing websites.
๐น Decision:
The court ordered ISPs to block the infringing websites.
Stated that ISPs, while not infringers, have a duty to help prevent infringement when itโs proven.
๐น Significance:
This decision supports the site-blocking regime, allowing brands to request ISPs to block counterfeit sites.
6. Alibaba v. Luxury Brands (Kering Group) โ (U.S. Court of Appeals, 2016 โ settled out of court)
๐น Facts:
Kering (Gucci, YSL) sued Alibaba for allowing large-scale sale of counterfeit products.
๐น Legal Issue:
Whether Alibaba was facilitating the sale of fakes by failing to monitor its sellers.
๐น Outcome:
The case was eventually settled, with Alibaba agreeing to improve anti-counterfeit measures.
๐น Significance:
Highlighted the rising pressure on big platforms to take responsibility and invest in better detection tools.
๐งพ Key Legal Principles Established from These Cases
| Principle | Description |
|---|---|
| Notice-and-Takedown | Platforms are often not liable until they are informed of specific counterfeit listings. |
| Active Involvement = Liability | If a platform actively markets, stores, or delivers, they may become liable (as a seller). |
| Contributory Infringement | Hosts and service providers can be liable if they knowingly support counterfeit activities. |
| Brand Duty to Monitor | Trademark owners must monitor and notify platformsโthey can't offload all responsibility. |
| Site Blocking | Courts can order ISPs to block access to websites proven to sell counterfeits. |
โ๏ธ Conclusion
The global legal landscape is slowly evolving to balance:
The need to protect intellectual property and consumers, and
The rights and limitations of intermediary platforms like Amazon, eBay, Alibaba, or hosting services.
Most jurisdictions now recognize that online platforms must take reasonable steps to remove and prevent counterfeit goods. However, absolute liability is rarely imposed unless there's active involvement or willful ignorance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments