Another Case Dismissed: Belgians first to rule on L’Oreal’s claims against eBay

Add a comment 9 Another Case Dismissed: Belgians first to rule on L’Oreal’s claims against eBay

FEATURED POSTRichard Brewer-Hay / Tuesday, August 12th, 2008

Another Case Dismissed: Belgians first to rule on L’Oreal’s claims against eBay

The Belgian Tribunal de Commerce has dismissed all claims by L’Oreal (Lancome Parfums et Beaute) brought against eBay regarding, among other things, the sale of counterfeit L’Oreal cosmetics and perfume products online. L’Oreal initiated legal action in the courts of France, Belgium, Germany, Great Britain and Spain in 2007. The Belgian dismissal is the first and only ruling regarding the legal action.

The Belgian tribunal, determining the case between eBay and L’Oreal, found that eBay does not have a general obligation to control/filter/assess the legality of the information posted on its site by service users. The Tribunal went on to rule that the procedures and programs put in place by eBay to fight counterfeits are both genuine and effective. eBay can therefore be considered as a “prudent” and “diligent” operator, echoing similar statements made by a US court last month in its rejection of Tiffany’s lawsuit against eBay.

eBay issued the following statement earlier today:
“This is the second successful court ruling in a row for eBay, both supporting our view that controlling prices and distribution reduces consumer choice. The litigation of counterfeits against eBay has been exposed as merely a stalking horse. eBay provides a vibrant and trusted marketplace that gives European consumers a good deal. We work to tackle the menace of counterfeit through action and co-operation with rights owners.”

Now that Belgium has come down with their ruling, it will be interesting to see if (and when) the other countries will follow suit.

Cheers,
RBH

Related Reads:
Belgian Court Dismisses L’Oreal Claims Against eBay
eBay Wins Belgian Court Victory Over L’Oreal in Fake Case
eBay wins L’Oreal counterfeiting case in Belgium
More

Dakota / August 12th, 2008 at 8:53 pm

It’s not over until the fat lady sings.

You forgot an important sentence in the report on this. While it may be the last sentence, it is important all the same:

“L’Oreal said in a statement it would appeal against the decision.”

HAL / August 13th, 2008 at 10:57 pm

Of course L’oreal is going to appeal. That’s standard operating procedure. If you can’t beat ‘em, tie ‘em up in court. L’oreal’s lawyers probably have their jobs on the line with this one so they’re going to do what they can to salvage this. So would eBay’s lawyers if the ruling had gone against them, or if the appeal overturns the current ruling.

Jay / August 14th, 2008 at 7:30 am

I have to concur with Hal on this. All companies that lose the initial case always appeal.

If they didn’t, the attorneys wouldn’t be doing their jobs.

Dakota / August 14th, 2008 at 7:32 pm

What I find imortant here does not require a wolf pack mentality. Please don’t gang up on me.

What is funny about this report and with your responses is –

When a report is written about eBay losing a court case, it is always noted that they plan to appeal. In fact, they sometimes write a whole new report about a planned appeal.

You two act as though all who read that report will know that an appeal is planned. Not everyone who reads it is so all-knowing.

An important part of the report was left out and I simply pointed it out.

There was no reason to jump on me.

CARL D MAN / August 14th, 2008 at 11:33 pm

Nobody jumped all over you, the only echoed the obvious. Of course there will be appeals. I’m just glad these courts are being sensible in seeing that eBay can’t stop and block all counterfeits. At least the efforts against counterfeits on eBay are being recognized instead of just having eBay throw out money left and right for what is really the copyright holder’s responsibility.

If these companies want the counterfeits to stop making their way to the internet then they should go after the individual sellers to make a public example of them. I’d say go after the actual counterfeiters BUT these items come from China, Thailand, and so forth were international copyright law is simply not recognized. This being the case, the counterfeiters will not be prosecuted for anything. However, scare the resellers and their respective market into not selling the items then the counterfeiting will drop as people will not want to buy in order to resell. Holding the company itself responsbile is simply a ridiculous act in my opinion. They’re going after the fattest wallet and nothing more. Those sellers know they’re purchasing fakes, they’re well aware of it, hold THEM responsible. Sue the people that deserve the wrath. Until they do, counterfeits will have a market as there is no actual consequence for the action.

Henrietta / August 14th, 2008 at 11:54 pm

You are absolutely correct Dakota.

Jay / August 15th, 2008 at 8:26 am

My apologies for even giving the hint that my motives were to gang up on you.

Seriously, I just read what Hal wrote and went “I concur” without any intent to harass or belittle you.

When eBay loses a court case, they appeal. When they win, their opponents appeal. It’s the system :)

Jay / August 15th, 2008 at 8:30 am

Also, like I mentioned in the Tiffany thread – this isn’t about counterfeits. L’Oreal, Tiffany, Coach, and all the big brand names demand eBay’s Trust and Safety department to remove items that ARE legitimate.

I also think if a company is worried about counterfeits of their goods, they need to come up with a better way (like a bar code validation system).

Why is it $5 gift cards from the local coffee shop can stop theft and counterfeits of their cards, but a few pennies of that $800 per handbag can’t go towards something like that from these people.

Donella Johnson / September 4th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Does anyone know of an available English Translation of the Belgian court’s decision?