tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1422972811266140141..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: High Court: L'Oréal v eBay - ebay wins again?Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-8751185373124209522009-06-10T18:19:08.196+01:002009-06-10T18:19:08.196+01:00Has anyone been able to unravell the German myster...Has anyone been able to unravell the German mystery?? The translation of the decision that I have read clearly has eBay winning on the basis that the tester bottles were put onto the market with L'O's consent, whereas there are reports in various places saying that eBay lost.<br /><br />Does anyone know if the Englsih translation is selective of all the issues at trial, or an appeal on a limited set of issues?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-23329126638259940312009-05-29T11:13:53.999+01:002009-05-29T11:13:53.999+01:00A further issue has occurred to me.Because of the ...A further issue has occurred to me.Because of the anonymity of eBay vendors until the point of sale, is not eBay liable for the acts of an undisclosed principal? These are matters of domestic law. It should not be necessary to trouble the ECJ.Robert Hurstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-79052000084061105932009-05-29T07:49:17.942+01:002009-05-29T07:49:17.942+01:00The e-commerce directive is inpenetrable - even th...The e-commerce directive is inpenetrable - even the trade marks directive is clear in comparison! However if clear guidance can be given (either by Arnold J - which is likely, or the ECJ - about which there might have to be some not breath holding) on the interpreatation of how liability works under the e-commerce rules and what "coordinated field" means then I for one will have less work to do. Are we likely to get a clear answer from the ECJ? Are we ever.Ashley Roughtonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-20947180690755915902009-05-27T11:11:23.720+01:002009-05-27T11:11:23.720+01:00Is it really necessary to refer the matter to the ...Is it really necessary to refer the matter to the ECJ? <br /><br />Is not the only relevant question whether E-Bay was a joint tortfeasor with the infringers? <br /><br />In A & M Records v Audio Magnetics [1979] FSR 1 (in which I represented Audio Magnetics) and CBS v Amstrad [1988] AC 1013, it was held that, since any copyright infringement would have taken place subsequent to the sale of the blank tapes by the alleged joint tortfeasor (i.e. the manufacturer of the blank tapes), no tort can have been committed at the point of sale. The allegation of joint tortfeasorship was therefore unsustainable.<br /><br />By way of contrast, the TM infringement in relation to goods sold on e-Bay does take place at the point of sale. Because of e-Bay's system (which Arnold J conceded leaves room for improvement), the identity of the vendor remains anonymous until the point at which the contract is concluded and the infringement has been committed.Robert Hurstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-47225732744380775362009-05-22T16:46:53.866+01:002009-05-22T16:46:53.866+01:00For our German readers: you will be most intereste...For our German readers: you will be most interested in paragraphs 320 pp. re Bundesgerichtshof decision in I ZR 63/04 "Parfümtester" (Perfume Tester Bottles). <br /><br />In particular paragraph 326, which reads "The judgment of the Bundesgerichtshof is entitled to the greatest of respect. It may be correct. I am unable to agree, however, that the matter is acte clair. In my judgment, it is arguable that the Bundesgerichtshof's decision is wrong for the reasons given by counsel for L'Oréal. Accordingly, I consider that guidance is required from the ECJ on this issue."Birgit Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02822674465997696890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-24965591884672226212009-05-22T16:28:20.872+01:002009-05-22T16:28:20.872+01:00For those who have not read the judgment, conclusi...For those who have not read the judgment, conclusion (vi) refers to Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive.Mr Justice Arnoldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-34024927420795711432009-05-22T15:33:56.023+01:002009-05-22T15:33:56.023+01:00Thanks for your update Kat! I was just about to e...Thanks for your update Kat! I was just about to email you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com