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 2025

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

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

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article