L’Oréal and eBay settle dispute over online fakes

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

L’Oréal and eBay settle dispute over online fakes

Seven years after L’Oréal sued eBay for not doing enough to counter the sale of fakes on its website, the two companies have settled their litigation, declaring that “cooperation, rather than litigation”, is the way forward in the fight against fakes

The terms of the deal are confidential but in a joint statement L’Oréal said it acknowledges eBay’s commitment in the fight against intellectual property infringement.

L’Oréal filed lawsuits against eBay in France, Belgium, the UK and Spain in 2007. In 2008 the Belgian first instance court dismissed L’Oréal’s claims. One year later, the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance ruled that eBay had fulfilled its obligation “in good faith” to help prevent fake L’Oréal products from being sold on its website but the judge told the two parties to discuss their dispute with a mediator.

The case filed in the UK was ultimately referred to Europe’s highest court, which in 2011 addressed the liability of internet service providers for counterfeit goods sold online; the legality of sales of goods from outside the EU; and the legitimacy of keyword advertising.

The Court’s ruling said that the operator of an online marketplace cannot be exempted from liability for infringement when it “plays an active role” giving it knowledge of or control over data relating to offers for sale.

At the time, Stefan Krawczyk, senior director and counsel government relations, eBay Europe, told Managing IP that it is still up to the national courts to decide facts. “That still probably leaves 27 or more different interpretations,” he added. “The national court will again come into play: is it proportionate? Does it affect legitimate trade? Judgments will be made in national contexts.”

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Camilla Hamrin describes how the acquisition by Acapo Onsagers will impact Bergenstråhle’s trademark practice – and reflects on changes she has seen over 30 years in IP
On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Daniel Law says a string of lateral hires and broader expansion plans will strengthen its position to capitalise on Brazil’s burgeoning IP and patent litigation market
Jason Raeburn’s arrival will expand the firm’s London footprint in AI, copyright and tech disputes
The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, Eltemate
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Injunctions for HandsFree Labs and Align Technology come as the Court of Appeal warns that busy teams must have the staffing and resources to meet UPC deadlines
Gift this article