Amazon could be blamed for fake Louboutin shoe ads - EU

Top EU court says Amazon could be held

responsible for third-party sales of fake

Louboutin shoes

Yes Amazon could be held responsible for advertising fake red soled shoes which potentially breach designer, Christian Louboutins, EU trademark similar or red-soled high-heeled. High heels are advertised on Amazon by third-party vendors without Louboutins consent. The court of justice of the European Union. These cje, you said Amazon may be accountable for any A trademark infringement. Louboutin said, the platform selling model was misleading. The public Amazon says, it will study the decision. Yes, little difficult role again, not defending Amazon, just looking at it and going, well, I don't know the difference between the shoes, you see on the screen there and, you know, a bucket of bolts. I'm a guy, I don't know, this kind of stuff, you know. So I don't think with the tons and tons and billions and billions of Some data that's on Amazon. 

There's going to be extremely difficult for anybody to tell the difference between the good stuff for the fake stuff. Believe me. All right, the polemic probably use your words. David the preliminary ruling by the Luxembourg based Court clears the way for Amazon to be potentially be held liable for adverts. For any counterfeit products are sold on its site, which sell interest me. I mean, the Americans, I think it's a visit article to 30 or something like that. Where at the sites, just a publisher and not responsible or a platform. Sorry, and not responsible for what's put up there, something on those lines anyway. From my failing memory but there's again in the EU things are slightly different and I find it interesting that Amazon with its vast reach would be blamed for somebody uploading something that you know they can't keep track of everything. That's what I'm saying there has been a long-running dispute between Amazon and Shoemaker Lou Bhutan whose high heels typically sold for at least 600 pounds. Louboutin brought brought to Kate brought two cases against the company in courts in When Luxembourg in 2019 alleging Amazon regularly, displayed adverts for Red Sole shoes on. It's Marketplace without Louboutins consent. The the two courts sought the guidance of the court of justice of the European Union. Cju in its ruling on Thursday. The CJ, you said, Amazon could potentially be considered responsible for alleged intellectual property breaches found the advertisements of counterfeit shoes featuring the famous readers Soul now uses The platform may be under the impression that it is Amazon and not the 3rd party seller who makes the product in its name. 

And on its behalf, says the cje. You press offers. Cge, press office told the BBC, that's part of the problem, isn't that? Just because I run an ad on a television on television, doesn't mean that that particular television station, it's their product. Hmm, the court of justice of the European Union said it was now up to two national courts in Belgium and Luxembourg to decide whether this was the case. Now, the platform also offers additional services to these to these third-party sellers, in particular, the storage and shipping of their products. The cje you noted now, cleared air freshener differentiations. Louboutin means that Amazon has illegally used the trademark Red Sole for products, identical to its own and insist in particular, on the fact, With the disputed ads are an integral part of Amazon's commercial communication. Now T out event. Ennis Louboutins lawyer says the cje. You had followed the designers arguments in every detail. Amazon could be held accountable for the breaches as if the platform was itself, the seller mr. Venus told news agency, Reuters, after the court ruling, yes, Amazon will be forced to change their model and stop misleading. The public by mixing up their own and third party offers. Yeah. It amazes me the amount of data that Amazon pumps through. Yes, they've got to have, got to be diligent but my goodness gracious one or two things are going to slip through. For goodness sake, mr. Van Anna said Lou, Bhutan was not currently seeking financial compensation. We're not talking about money at this stage, just one of the briefs that preaches to stop, and that's fair enough to. Now, Amazon's aware of them, they should be able to make whatever changes are necessary. As I said, that's a better way to go than, you know, destroying Amazon to simply because a PO They got that much data that can keep track of it, which I think might be the case here. The case feeds into part of the wider debate, on trademark infringement, on online, on the Online Marketplace and the difficulty for uses identifying the true seller intellectual property, lawyer Fabian Klein from Law, Firm Pinson Mason's told the BBC, the platform providers should review the layout of this site to ensure that was clearly identifiable to the public where the offers originated from. It may be having something like a verification mark. This is the genuine article would be good. Mr. Klein said if a platform is just a Marketplace without its own offerings like eBay, nothing will change. But if, but for platforms that mix their own offerings and third party offerings, they should consider from a trademark perspective where they want to create a different look and feel or other clear differentiation. As I said, a, a mark of genuineness, shall we say, which would be. I'm sure not that difficult Implement. If it's going to save, A whole lot of this mucking around in the future. All right.