Children’s highchair manufacturer Stokke and the largest online auction site in the Netherlands Marktplaats.nl have been fighting for years. Many Stokke chairs are offered via Marktplaats, about 5% of which are knock-offs. The fake chairs surely violate Stokke’s copyright. The button at the bottom of every Marktplaats ad said: “Report an infringement” (or rather, it did when the case started. The button now only says “Violation of site rules” and requires you to click through several more pages). Visitors can complain about infringements on IP rights, such as copyright. As soon as Stokke requests removal of the fake chairs, Marktplaats removes the infringing ads. But Stokke holds that Marktplaats should remove them on their own initiative. Active gateway screening, in other words. This last aspect was the specific focus of the ruling handed down by the court of appeal in Leeuwarden on 22 May 2012.
Marktplaats is considered a ‘hosting service’ under current legislation, storing information from third parties (advertisers) on its network (website). As long as Marktplaats does not have any real influence on the content and remains sufficiently neutral in that context, it cannot be held liable for a copyright infringement. Hence it cannot be held liable for an ad offering a Stokke look-alike. One of the important conditions for appealing to this ‘liability exemption’ is that Marktplaats has to respond actively to a reported infringement. As soon as Stokke sends Marktplaats a report that an advertisement for fake chairs has been posted, it has to be removed. The court of appeal ruled that Marktplaats always responded promptly to Stokke’s reports. In other words, Marktplaats is following the rules.
However, this does not conflict with a ban or court order involving IP rights. Even if Marktplaats is sufficient neutral and responds quickly, it could still be required to scan advertisements in advance to check for fake chairs. However, such obligation would need a good cause. Stokke’s arguments were not considered sufficiently pressing. The court of appeal ruled that Stokke’s demand constituted a disproportionate disadvantage: it would cost Marktplaats quite a lot of money to scan posts and handle the resulting administration. Stokke will have to be satisfied with the current complaints procedure.
Jurre Reus, student-intern
|
office Emerald House Jozef Israëlskade 48-G Amsterdam, the Netherlands t +31 (0)20 - 305 3066 www.hoogenhaak.nl |
post PO Box 76780 1070 KB Amsterdam e info@hoogenhaak.nl f +31 (0)20 - 305 3069 chamber of commerce 34314579 |
Children’s highchair manufacturer Stokke and the largest online auction site in the Netherlands Marktplaats.nl have been fighting for years. Many Stokke chairs are offered via Marktplaats, about 5% of which are knock-offs. The fake chairs surely violate Stokke’s copyright. The button at the bottom of every Marktplaats ad said: “Report an infringement” (or rather, it did when the case started. The button now only says “Violation of site rules” and requires you to click through several more pages). Visitors can complain about infringements on IP rights, such as copyright. As soon as Stokke requests removal of the fake chairs, Marktplaats removes the infringing ads. But Stokke holds that Marktplaats should remove them on their own initiative. Active gateway screening, in other words. This last aspect was the specific focus of the ruling handed down by the court of appeal in Leeuwarden on 22 May 2012.
Marktplaats is considered a ‘hosting service’ under current legislation, storing information from third parties (advertisers) on its network (website). As long as Marktplaats does not have any real influence on the content and remains sufficiently neutral in that context, it cannot be held liable for a copyright infringement. Hence it cannot be held liable for an ad offering a Stokke look-alike. One of the important conditions for appealing to this ‘liability exemption’ is that Marktplaats has to respond actively to a reported infringement. As soon as Stokke sends Marktplaats a report that an advertisement for fake chairs has been posted, it has to be removed. The court of appeal ruled that Marktplaats always responded promptly to Stokke’s reports. In other words, Marktplaats is following the rules.
However, this does not conflict with a ban or court order involving IP rights. Even if Marktplaats is sufficient neutral and responds quickly, it could still be required to scan advertisements in advance to check for fake chairs. However, such obligation would need a good cause. Stokke’s arguments were not considered sufficiently pressing. The court of appeal ruled that Stokke’s demand constituted a disproportionate disadvantage: it would cost Marktplaats quite a lot of money to scan posts and handle the resulting administration. Stokke will have to be satisfied with the current complaints procedure.
Jurre Reus, student-intern