France: Mere storage of infringing goods does not constitute trademark use

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

France: Mere storage of infringing goods does not constitute trademark use

Sponsored by

beau-de-lomenie.png
warehouse indoor view

In a much awaited preliminary decision, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on April 2 2020 (C-567/18 Coty Germany GmbH v Amazon Services Europe Sarl et al) on the responsibilities of Amazon warehouse-keepers in relation to the sale by a third-party seller on the online marketplace, Amazon Marketplace, of perfume bottles for which the rights had not been exhausted.

On appeal filed by Coty, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) decided to refer a question for a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice. The question was as follows:

Can a person who, on behalf of a third party, stores goods which infringe trademark rights, without having knowledge of that infringement, be regarded as holding those goods for the purpose of offering them or placing them on the market if it is not that person but the third party who, alone, pursues the aim of offering the goods for sale or putting them on the market?

According to the court, the concept of "using", according to its "ordinary meaning", implies active behaviour and direct or indirect control of the act constituting the use (paragraph 37). The court adds that, "in order for the storage of goods bearing signs identical, or similar to, trademarks to be classified as "using" those signs, it is also necessary…for the economic operator providing the storage itself to pursue the aim referred to by those provisions, which is offering the goods or putting them on the market."

That means that the warehouse-keeper would have to himself pursue the aim of offering the goods for sale or putting them on the market.

The court therefore ruled that a person who, on behalf of a third party, stores goods which infringe trademark rights, without being aware of that infringement, must be regarded as not stocking those goods in order to offer them or put them on the market for the purposes of those provisions, if that person does not himself pursue those aims.

Thus the mere storage of goods by Amazon as a warehouse-keeper on behalf of a third-party seller does not constitute an infringement.

Aurélia Marie

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Three successive wins have got the firm eyeing additional opportunities as ITC work booms
While many firms remain focused on generative AI, recent hires and practice launches suggest the next battle may be for lawyers who understand how AI is moving into the physical world
The explosion of data centres has prompted patent pool operators to create new licensing opportunities
The court struck out copyright claims brought by Ladbrokes owner Entain, saying that ownership details should have been completed before litigation began
Düsseldorf has overtaken Munich as the UPC's busiest division, while firms including Winston Taylor, Clifford Chance, and Hoyng Rokh Monegier featured in disputes involving Abbott, Essity, Amazon and Hurom
The managing partner gave up an equity partnership track in New York to build a practice in India. More than a decade later, she discusses entrepreneurship, leadership, and why women should not wait before taking the next step
Vice presidents Shinya Jitsuhiro and Hirohisa Suzuki discuss litigation trends in Japan, recruitment challenges and clients’ international expansion
IP boutique Petillion represented IKEA in the dispute, which concerned the use of the multinational’s trademarks in an immigration-focused campaign. The firm tells Managing IP how it secured the outcome
The Pizzeys-Griffith Hack integration was designed to create a stronger Australian IP platform but with several ex-Pizzeys principals now gone, the deal's success may depend on where clients place their trust
Thomas Lonsdale and Hsu Min Chung of HGF explore the practical impact of the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision in G1/25 and its interplay with G1/24
Gift this article