Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 1 af 22
In the case
Louis Vuitton Malletier
ctr.
Ms Christine Holm
and
Finn.no
Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 2 af 22
Statement of Claims
1 Ms Holm being ordered to destroy the goods in her possession (Louis Vuitton Speedy 35 bought in
Portugal in a small shop on the beach) or, subsidiary, to deliver the goods to the proprietor, or, more
subsidiary, to refrain from advertising the goods or selling them to others. ......................................................7
1.1 Trade marks.......................................................................................................................................7
1.1.1 Trade mark rights..........................................................................................................................7
1.1.2 Trade mark infringement ..............................................................................................................9
1.2 The copyright ..................................................................................................................................11
1.2.1 The rights ....................................................................................................................................11
1.2.2 The copyright infringement ........................................................................................................12
2 Ms Holm being ordered to give her consent to destruction of the 10 remaining Louis Vuitton handbags
as specified in claim 1 once these have been suspended by Norwegian customs, alternatively once the
handbags have come into the possession of Ms Holm. ....................................................................................13
2.1 The Customs Act.............................................................................................................................13
2.2 Louis Vuitton’s Custom Notice Application ..................................................................................13
2.3 Consent to destruction.....................................................................................................................14
3 Ms Holm being ordered to remove the advertisement from the website and to refrain from uploading it
again or showing it in any other way on any media, digital as well as printed, including other advertisements
that exhibit the handbags as specified in claim 1. ............................................................................................14
4 Ms Holm being ordered to pay damages covering all expenses, lost profit, a reasonable royalty and
harm to the reputation of the trade mark in the amount of DKK 173,250.- and interest on this amount from
the date of this statement of claims and until payment takes place. .................................................................15
4.1 Lost profit........................................................................................................................................15
4.2 A reasonable royalty .......................................................................................................................16
4.2.1 Trade mark..................................................................................................................................16
Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 3 af 22
4.2.2 Copyright ....................................................................................................................................16
4.3 Harm to the reputation ....................................................................................................................17
4.3.1 Trade marks ................................................................................................................................17
4.3.2 Copyright ....................................................................................................................................17
4.4 Louis Vuitton’s expenses to monitor of the market ........................................................................17
5 The Operator being ordered to remove the advertisement from the website and refrain from publishing
it again. .............................................................................................................................................................18
6 The Operator being ordered to pay damages covering all expenses, lost profit, a reasonable royalty and
harm to the reputation of the trade mark in the amount of DKK 173,250.- and interest on this amount from
the date of this statement of claims and until payment takes place. Subsidiary the Operator to pay damages
from the date of receiving the requirement of removing the advertisement of an amount appointed by the
court and interest on this amount from the date of this statement of claims and until payment takes place....19
7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................19
EXHIBIT 1 .........................................................................................................................................................20
EXHIBIT 2 .........................................................................................................................................................21
EXHIBIT 3 .........................................................................................................................................................22
Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 4 af 22
Claims
1. Ms Holm being ordered to destroy the goods in her possession (Louis Vuitton Speedy 35 bought
in Portugal in a small shop on the beach) or, subsidiary, to deliver the goods to the proprietor, or,
more subsidiary, to refrain from advertising the goods or selling them to others.
2. Ms Holm being ordered to give her consents to destruction of the 10 remaining handbags as
specified in claim 1 once these have been suspended by Norwegian customs, alternatively once the
handbags have come into the possession of Ms Holm.
3. Ms Holm being ordered to remove the advertisement from the website, finn.no and to refrain
from uploading it again or showing it in any other way on any media, digital as well as printed,
including other advertisements that exhibit the handbags as specified in claim 1.
4. Ms Holm being ordered to pay damages covering all expenses, lost profit, a reasonable royalty
and harm to the reputation of the trade mark in the amount of DKK 173,250.- and interest on this
amount from the date of this statement of claims and until payment takes place.
5. The Operator being ordered to remove the advertisement from the website, finn.no and refrain
from publishing it again.
6. The Operator being ordered to pay damages covering all expenses, lost profit, a reasonable
royalty and harm to the reputation of the trade mark in the amount of DKK 173,250.- and interest
on this amount from the date of this statement of claims and until payment takes place. Subsidiary
the Operator to pay damages from the date of receiving the requirement of removing the
advertisement of an amount appointed by the court and interest on this amount from the date of this
statement of claims and until payment takes place.
Facts
The subject of the matter is infringement of Louis Vuittons trade mark and assessment of damages.
The parties of the matter
Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 5 af 22
The claimant - Louis Vuitton Malletier (hereinafter Louis Vuitton)
Louis Vuitton is a French fashion house founded in 1854. Louis Vuitton became well known by
creating luggage, bags and accessories as innovative as they were elegant and practical. Louis
Vuitton is well known for its LV monogram and is known as a symbolic of luxury. The monogram
LV is placed on most of the products. Louis Vuitton is especially known for its handbags, suitcases
and luggage in general. The Louis Vuitton Brand and the famous LV monogram are among the
world's most valuable brands. Forbes annual ranking list of the 100 "Best Global Brands" in 2010
shows Louis Vuitton as being number 16.
Respondent 1 - Ms Christine Holm (hereinafter Ms Holm)
Ms Holm is a young Norwegian girl.
Respondent 2 - The Operator of the Website finn.no (hereinafter the Operator)
Finn.no was established in March 2000. It is a website specializing in advertisements and services
regarding sales and purchase involving private individuals as well as small and large commercial
businesses. The website has more than 4.1 million visitors each month and is the largest market
place in Norway. Every day more than 300.000 advertisements are available on finn.no, and the
website has a turnover of more than NOK 700 millions a year.
The more specific facts
During a holiday in Portugal Ms Holm purchased 16 handbags bearing the trade mark 'Louis
Vuitton'. Ms Holm has informed Louis Vuitton that the bags were purchased from a small shop on
the beach. While the exact prices of the handbags have not been made known to the claimant, it is
undisputed that the handbags were purchased at unusually low prices. Six of the
purchased handbags were brought across the Norwegian border in Ms Holm's luggage. To Louis
Vuitton's knowledge the remaining 10 handbags have not yet been delivered to Ms Holms address
in Norway. When Ms Holm came home from her holiday she managed to sell two of the handbags
to acquaintances of her.
In addition, Ms Holm placed an advertisement for the handbags on the website finn.no where she
demanded a price above her own purchase price, but considerably below the retail price in Norway.
Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 6 af 22
Louis Vuitton quickly contacted Ms Holm and demanded that she destroyed the goods in her
possession or, alternatively, delivered the goods to Louis Vuitton without any remuneration. Ms
Holm refused to do so.
Louis Vuitton furthermore contacted the Operator of the website finn.no and required that the
advertisement was immediately removed from the website. The Operator refused to do so.
The handbags in question are counterfeits of the Louis Vuitton Speedy 35 bag with the LV
Monogram canvas, zip closure and padlock, rounded handles, trimmings in natural cowhide leather
and the measurement (LxHxD): 35cm x 23cm x 18cm. All of these characteristics can also be found
on the counterfeit handbags; in fact the bags are identical to each other.
Louis Vuitton has several registered trade marks including the ‘Louis Vuitton’ word mark, the ‘LV’
figurative mark and the ‘Monogram’ Canvas also as a figurative mark (see Exhibit 1). For the sake
of the context in our argumentation, these registrations are accounted for below (1.1.1).
Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 7 af 22
Argumentation
1 Ms Holm being ordered to destroy the goods in her possession (Louis Vuitton Speedy 35
bought in Portugal in a small shop on the beach) or, subsidiary, to deliver the goods to the
proprietor, or, more subsidiary, to refrain from advertising the goods or selling them to
others.
1.1 Trade marks
1.1.1 Trade mark rights
1.1.1.1 'Word' mark - 'Louis Vuitton'
‘Louis Vuitton’ is registered as a trade mark (w) in accordance with the directive 2008/95/EC,
Article 2 and the Danish and the Norwegian Trade Mark Acts, Section 2(1). The word mark is
registered in the Nice Classifications 16, 18 and 25.
1.1.1.2 Figurative marks - 'LV' and ‘Monogram’
The ‘LV’ logo and the Canvas “Monogram” are registered as figurative marks in accordance with
the directive 2008/95/EC, Article 2 and the Danish and the Norwegian Trade Mark Acts, Section
2(1). The figurative marks are registered in the Nice Classifications 16, 18 and 25.
1.1.1.3 3D mark - The Speedy Bag
According to the directive 2008/95/EC, Article 2 and the Danish and the Norwegian Trade Mark
Acts, Section 2(1) the shape of a product can be protected as a trade mark (3D trade mark). This
protection is also established in the Mag-lite case from the European court of Justice C-136/02,
where a flashlight was protected as a trade mark.
In order for the product itself to be protected as a trade mark, it is required that the consumers
perceive the shape as a link between the product and the company. The trade mark has to separate
the company’s goods from other companies’ goods.
Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 8 af 22
The ability for a trade mark to separate a company’s goods from others can be acquired through
establishment on the market. A well-established trade mark is thus more likely to obtain the
necessary distinctiveness.
The Speedy Bag in its current shape has been on the market since 1969 and is one of Louis
Vuitton’s most popular handbags. In addition, it is one of the most purchased handbags worldwide.
It is furthermore often used in television, movies and magazines because of its recognizable features
as a symbol of Louis Vuitton.
The iconic squared shape with rounded corners and distinguished trimmings in leather and the small
rounded leather handles, which are attached to the bag with leather chapes as well as the zip closure
with golden padlock are all characteristics that separate the Speedy bag from other bags and which
is recognized as being Louis Vuitton by consumers.
The length of the rounded handles is ideal for carrying the bag in the bend of the arm in a
characteristic manner, which lead consumers’ thoughts to Louis Vuitton as well.
In light of the above as well as the exceptional quality, the long standing development, innovative
design, well-established trade mark and the fact that it is one of the most well known and
prestigious bags in the world, the Speedy bag should be considered a trade mark itself, cf. the
Danish and the Norwegian Trade Mark Acts, Section 2(1).
1.1.1.4 Well-known trade marks
The Danish and the Norwegian Trade Mark Acts, Section 4(2) and the Paris Convention, Article 6
b, offer a wider protection for well-known trade marks. These provisions protect against harm to the
reputation or distinctiveness of the trade mark.
As mentioned above, Louis Vuitton as a brand was rated number 16 on Forbes annual ranking list
of the 100 "Best Global Brands" of 2010. It is undeniable that Louis Vuitton is a well-known trade
mark and that it has a reputation as such. This is stated in several cases worldwide e.g. case C-
236/08 for the European Court of Justice (Google vs. Louis Vuitton) and will also be documented
through the examination of witnesses. Consequently, the trade marks of Louis Vuitton enjoy a
Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 9 af 22
wider protection than other marks, cf. the Danish and the Norwegian Trade Mark Acts, Section
4(2).
1.1.2 Trade mark infringement
1.1.2.1 'Course of trade'
The Trade Mark Acts are only applicable to infringements carried out in the course of trade, cf. the
Danish and the Norwegian Trade Mark Acts, Section 4.
In a case from the Danish Maritime and Commercial Court from the 12th November 2007 – case
SH 2007.V-0038-06 (Canada Goose), it was established that a purchase of 10 jackets with the intent
to resale was made in the course of trade. The Court emphasized that since the jackets were
purchased as one unit by the same wholesaler the jackets were considered as purchased in the
course of trade.
Ms Holm has purchased a total of 15 bags in Portugal from the same wholesaler. The bags are
purchased over a period of two days: first 5 bags, then the remaining 10 bags. As the two purchases
are only one day apart they should be considered as one. The 15 handbags are undeniably purchased
with intent to resale and to make a profit.
Consequently, Ms Holm's use of the trade marks in question has been made in the course of trade.
1.1.2.2 Bad faith
Given the large quantity of the handbags purchased and the context the purchases take place, Louis
Vuitton considers it to be undeniable that Ms Holm was in bad faith regarding the authenticity of
the handbags.
1.1.2.3 Identical or similar trade marks
A Community trade mark shall confer on the proprietor exclusive rights therein. The proprietor
shall be entitled to prevent all third parties not having his consent from using in the course of trade:
any sign which is identical or similar with the Community trade mark in relation to goods or
Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 10 af 22
services which are identical or similar with those for which the Community trade mark is registered,
cf. Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, Article. 9(1), litra a and the Danish and the Norwegian
Trade Mark Acts, Section 4(1).
Immediately below we have inserted pictures of the relevant products showing the trade marks.
These pictures are also produced as Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3.
The counterfeit bag that Ms. Holm bought in Portugal Louis Vuitton’s Speedy 35
The counterfeit handbags purchased by Ms. Holm bear the figurative marks registered by Louis
Vuitton (”Monogram” and the LV logo). The marks on the counterfeit handbags do not differ from
the trade marks registered by Louis Vuitton, and thus, the trade marks are identical. Consequently,
the handbags constitute an infringement of Louis Vuitton’s trade mark rights to the figurative
marks, cf. the Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, Article 9(1), litra a and the Danish and the
Norwegian Trade Mark Acts, Section 4(1).
Furthermore, the counterfeit handbags as such are identical or at least confusingly similar to the
Speedy Bag which as stated above is protected by trade mark law as a 3D trade mark. Therefore the
handbags themselves constitute an infringement of Louis Vuitton’s trade mark rights to the 3D
Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 11 af 22
marks as well, cf. the Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, Article 9(1), litra a and the Danish
and the Norwegian Trade Mark Acts, Section 4(1).
In addition to this, Ms Holm is infringing Louis Vuitton’s trade mark (w) by using ‘Louis Vuitton’
in the advertisement at finn.no.
1.1.2.4 Well-known trade marks
According to the wording of the Danish and the Norwegian Trade Mark Acts, Section 4(2), the
wider protection applies to goods which are not similar to those for which the trade mark right
applies.
However, in the case C-292/00 (Zino Davidoff) The European Court of Justice established that the
wider protection also applies to goods which are similar to those for which the trade mark right
applies.
In the case in question the trade mark is well-known and the goods are identical. By using the trade
marks in the advertisement Ms. Holm is causing serious harm to the reputation of Louis Vuitton as
well as risking a dilution of the trade marks.
1.2 The copyright
1.2.1 The rights
1.2.1.1 The Monogram
The Canvas “Monogram” (the Canvas) was created in 1896. It constitutes of graphic symbols,
including quatrefoils and flowers as well as the LV monogram. At the time of its creation, the
Canvas was innovative and exclusive in its expression. The unique design was thought up by
Georges Vuitton, the son of Louis Vuitton for the purpose of decoration, but also as a way to
distinguish the Louis Vuitton bags from other bags on the market. The design of the Canvas is a
work of art and holds a high degree of originality. The Canvas is therefore protected under the
Danish and the Norwegian Copyright Acts as an artistic work, cf. the Danish and the Norwegian
Copyright Acts, Section 1.
Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 12 af 22
Georges Vuitton passed away in 1936 and the copyright protection as such has therefore expired, cf.
the Danish and the Norwegian Copyright Acts, Section 63. However the moral rights of the artist in
the Danish and the Norwegian Copyright Acts, Section 3 remain, cf. the Danish and the Norwegian
Copyright Acts, Section 75. This includes the right of respect in the Danish and the Norwegian
Copyright Acts, Section 3(2) which prevents others from changing the work or make the work
available to the public in a form or context injurious to the artist.
1.2.1.2 The Speedy Bag
The Speedy bag itself was created by Georges Vuitton in 1932. As a tribute to the actress Audrey
Hepburn, the Speedy bag was reinterpreted in 1969 whereby it became the version of the Speedy
bag known today. This interpretation of the Speedy bag was an expression of creativity from the
entire Louis Vuitton design team. Such interpretation of a previous work is protected under the
Danish and the Norwegian Copyright Acts, Section 4 as an alteration.
1.2.2 The copyright infringement
1.2.2.1 The Monogram
The moral rights/ right of respect in the Danish and the Norwegian Copyright Acts, Section 3(2)
prevent others from changing a work or make a work available to the public in a form or context
which is offensive to the reputation of the artist.
In 1896 George Vuitton created the monogram (as also stated above). Inspired by his father he
created this work of art which was to embellish all products from Louis Vuitton. He incorporated
his father’s initials in order to create a work of art which should be associated with luxury and
exclusivity. Hereby he immortalized his father and the company that he created.
It is against George Vuitton’s ideas and intentions with his work when the monogram is placed on
counterfeit products of poor or at least uncertain quality. Furthermore the unusually low prices
collide with Georges Vuitton’s thoughts of exclusivity. For these reasons the use of the Monogram
is offensive to the reputation of the artist, Georges Vuitton. Thus the use constitutes an infringement
of the right of respect in the Danish and the Norwegian Copyright Acts, Section 3(2).
Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 13 af 22
1.2.2.2 The Speedy Bag
According to The Danish and the Norwegian Copyright Acts, Section 2 the holder of the copyright
can prevent others from making the work available to the public e.g. by offering the work for sale.
By selling the counterfeit bags or attempt to sell the counterfeit bags at the website finn.no Ms.
Holm is infringing Louis Vuitton’s copyright to the Speedy bag cf. the Danish and the Norwegian
Copyright Acts, Section 2.
Furthermore, the context in which the bags are being offered for sale is offensive to the reputation
of the artist, Georges Vuitton and the house of Louis Vuitton cf. the Danish and the Norwegian
Copyright Acts, Section 75, cf. Section 3.
As a consequence of the above it must be considered to be documented that Ms Holm is infringing
the trade mark rights and copyright of Louis Vuitton and therefore should be ordered to destroy the
goods in her possession or, subsidiary, to deliver the goods to the proprietor, or, more subsidiary, to
refrain from advertising the goods or selling them to others.
2 Ms Holm being ordered to give her consent to destruction of the 10 remaining Louis
Vuitton handbags as specified in claim 1 once these have been suspended by Norwegian
customs, alternatively once the handbags have come into the possession of Ms Holm.
2.1 The Customs Act
2.2 Louis Vuitton’s Custom Notice Application
Regarding the 10 remaining handbags yet to be delivered at Ms. Holm’s address in Norway, Louis
Vuitton has filed a Custom Notice Application requesting the Norwegian Customs to detain any
goods addressed to Ms. Holm. As stated above, Louis Vuitton has a strong suspicion that the goods
in question are in fact counterfeit products. This suspicion derives from the fact that the 6 handbags
already delivered to Ms. Holm and sold or attempted sold in Norway are counterfeit bags.
Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 14 af 22
2.3 Consent to destruction
Once the counterfeit goods have crossed the Norwegian border and are withheld in the Customs, a
notification will be given to Ms. Holm, cf. Section 15-1(2) in the Norwegian Customs Act
(Tolloven)
For the reasons mentioned above, Ms. Holm shall send a written and signed statement on voluntary
destruction to the Norwegian Customs and a copy of the statement to Louis Vuitton. This statement
shall be given within five days from the notification of the detention in Customs, cf. the Norwegian
Customs Act, Section 15-1(1).
As a consequence, Ms Holm should be ordered to give her consents to destruction of the 10
remaining handbags as specified in claim 1 once these have been suspended by Norwegian customs.
If the products actually reach Ms Holm’s address, she should be ordered to give consent to the
destruction of the products regardless of this fact.
3 Ms Holm being ordered to remove the advertisement from the website and to refrain
from uploading it again or showing it in any other way on any media, digital as well as
printed, including other advertisements that exhibit the handbags as specified in claim 1.
Louis Vuitton’s trade mark rights are accounted for above (1.1.1.).
By using the images of the trade marks and the word mark ‘Louis Vuitton’ in the advertisement on
finn.no, Ms. Holm is infringing Louis Vuitton’s trade mark rights.
Therefore, she should be ordered to remove the advertisement and refrain from displaying it again.
Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 15 af 22
4 Ms Holm being ordered to pay damages covering all expenses, lost profit, a reasonable
royalty and harm to the reputation of the trade mark in the amount of DKK 173,250.-
and interest on this amount from the date of this statement of claims and until payment
takes place.
As stated above, Ms Holm has violated several of Louis Vuitton’s IP rights. Consequently, Louis
Vuitton is entitled to compensation.
4.1 Lost profit
Still more people use the Internet both in their everyday life and in their professional life. It is
commonly known that you can buy and sell things on the Internet. All types of goods are now being
offered for sale on the Internet and Internet sales have to some degree replaced the traditional sales
in physical stores.
The relevant segment involves costumers who vary in social status, age, sex, and educational
background.
Given the Louis Vuitton bags’ exclusivity the prices to some degree dictate the costumers of Louis
Vuitton. However, the high prices do not prevent a person from saving up money for a Louis
Vuitton handbag if this is a priority to the person. Therefore the relevant segment to Louis Vuitton
consists of different types of consumers.
It is possible to buy original goods from luxury brands at favorable prices on the Internet. The
wording of the advertisement and the context in which it is brought leads the consumers to believe
that the bags offered for sale are genuine Louis Vuitton handbags.
Given the fact that Internet shopping involves all types of costumers, the Louis Vuitton consumer
segment will inevitably overlap into the Internet consumer segment. It is reasonable to assume that
the costumers who bought Ms Holm’s handbags would otherwise buy their Louis Vuitton handbag
at a certified retailer. Consequently, Louis Vuitton suffered loss of profit.
Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 16 af 22
The retail price for a Louis Vuitton Speedy 35 handbag is € 490.- or DKK 3,650.-.
Louis Vuitton demand (the retail price x 5) € 2,450.- or DKK 18,250.- in compensation for loss of
profit. If Ms Holm claims that not all the imported handbags have been sold we request (1) that she
hand over the counterfeit bags for destruction and cover all associated expenses.
4.2 A reasonable royalty
4.2.1 Trade mark
According to the Danish and the Norwegian Trade Mark Acts, Section 43 the right holder is entitled
to compensation for wrongful and unjustified use.
Reasonable royalty is based on what would normally be a agreed on in a trademark license
agreement.
Louis Vuitton estimates that our normal royalty under a license agreement would add up to 40% of
the licensee’s profit. In the case in question Louis Vuitton estimates the royalty to be DKK 10,000.
This will be documented through the examination of witnesses.
4.2.2 Copyright
The Danish and The Norwegian Copyright Acts, Section 83 give a right to royalty for wrongful or
unjustified use.
Under copyright law reasonable royalty is the payment that the copyright holder could claim if the
use had been legitimate i.e. according to an agreement with the copyright holder. It should be noted
that Louis Vuitton would never had entered into such an agreement. However, Louis Vuitton has a
claim for royalty and estimate that the royalty should be fixed at DKK 20,000. This will be
documented through the examination of witnesses.
Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 17 af 22
4.3 Harm to the reputation
4.3.1 Trade marks
When the consumers buy a Louis Vuitton handbag they are insured a high-quality product. This
guarantee is one of the main reasons for Louis Vuitton’s exclusivity. Products sold under the Louis
Vuitton brand that are substandard or of uncertain quality causes serious harm to Louis Vuitton’s
exclusive image and trade marks.
The quality of the bags sold by Ms Holm is uncertain and the price is below the retail price. Both
factors cause considerable harm to the reputation of Louis Vuitton. Because of the serious harm to
Louis Vuitton’s reputation and Ms Holms bad faith regarding the authenticity of the handbags,
Louis Vuitton claims damages in the amount of DKK 100,000.-.
4.3.2 Copyright
As stated above, counterfeit products are offensive to the reputation of the artist Georges Vuitton
and the Louis Vuitton design team. Consequently, Louis Vuitton is entitled to compensation in the
amount of DKK 15,000.-.
4.4 Louis Vuitton’s expenses to monitor of the market
In case law it is established that a right holder can claim compensation for expenses regarding
monitoring of the market to detect counterfeit products and other infringements cf. U.2005.60 V.
Louis Vuitton has a team of employees who monitor the market for counterfeit products. ‘Louis
Vuitton’ is one of the most counterfeited brands worldwide and as a result Louis Vuitton has
ongoing expenses in the attempt to control and prevent counterfeiting. Ms Holm should be ordered
to pay compensations on this matter. Louis Vuitton estimates a reasonable compensation to amount
to DKK 10,000.-. This will be documented through the examination of witnesses.
As a consequence Ms Holm should be ordered to pay damages covering all expenses, lost profit, a
reasonable royalty and harm to the reputation of the trade mark in the amount of DKK 173,250.-
and interest on this amount from the date of this statement of claims and until payment takes place.
Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 18 af 22
5 The Operator being ordered to remove the advertisement from the website and refrain
from publishing it again.
By providing uncontrolled advertising space on the website finn.no the Operator is aiding and
abetting a trade mark infringement and is subsequently violating Article 9 of council Regulation
(EC) No 207/2009.
In a recent and similar case from The Paris Court of Appeal of the 3th of September 2010 the court
stated that eBay was liable for a counterfeiting conviction for selling on its website imitation Louis
Vuitton Moet Hennessey (LVMH) products between 2001 and 2006. This decision dismissed
eBay’s claim for exemption on the grounds that it was acting merely as a provider of hosting
services. Consequently, a provider of advertising space has to apply measures, such as e.g. filter
listings before the advertisements are posted on the website that prevents counterfeit products from
being advertised on the website, as well as prohibit sale of counterfeit products.
Given the fact that infringing advertisement can be shut down easily and without any costs, the
responsibility should rest with the Operator and there should be willingness to grant a request from
proprietors on alleged infringement.
The Operator of finn.no has to the best of our knowledge not taken any measures to prevent sale of
counterfeit products, and we therefore request (2) that the respondent provide sufficient
documentation of measures taken to prevent trade mark infringement when the advertisements are
placed on their website. In failing to do so the Operator should be held liable from the time where
the advertisement were placed on the website.
As a consequence of the above it must be considered to be documented that the Operator is aiding
and abetting the infringements mentioned above, and therefore should be ordered to remove the
advertisement from the website, finn.no and refrain from publishing it again.
Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 19 af 22
6 The Operator being ordered to pay damages covering all expenses, lost profit, a
reasonable royalty and harm to the reputation of the trade mark in the amount of DKK
173,250.- and interest on this amount from the date of this statement of claims and until
payment takes place. Subsidiary the Operator to pay damages from the date of receiving
the requirement of removing the advertisement of an amount appointed by the court and
interest on this amount from the date of this statement of claims and until payment takes
place.
Since the Operator is aiding and abetting IP infringements which entitle Louis Vuitton to
compensation the Operator has joint and several liability with Ms Holm.
If the court in spite of the argumentation above (5) should find that the Operator cannot be held
responsible for the infringements before they became positively aware of these, Louis Vuitton
claims subsidiary that the Operator should be held liable from the time where Louis Vuitton
informed the Operator of Ms Holm’s unlawful conduct. Consequently, the Operator should be
ordered to pay an amount appointed by the court.
Consequently, the Operator should be ordered to pay damages covering all expenses, lost profit, a
reasonable royalty and harm to the reputation of the trade mark in the amount of DKK 173,250.-
and interest on this amount from the date of this statement of claims and until payment takes place.
Subsidiary the Operator to pay damages from the date of receiving the requirement of removing the
advertisement of an amount appointed by the court and interest on this amount from the date of this
statement of claims and until payment takes place.
7 Conclusion Consequently, it must be considered to be documented that Holm and Finn.no are infringing
the IP rights of Louis Vuitton and therefore should be ordered to pay compensation as stated
above.
Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 20 af 22
EXHIBIT 1
03/10/10 19.59OAMI-ONLINE - CTM-ONLINE - Detailed results
Side 2 af 2http://oami.europa.eu/CTMOnline/RequestManager/en_print_NoReg#
Trade mark No: 001274372 Type of mark: FigurativeFiling date: 11/08/1999 Date of
registration:14/12/2000
NiceClassification:
9, 35, 41 Status: Registration expired
Name of theowner:
Michael Yates
Applicant’sreference:
RMV/T95263EM
Trade markbasis:
CTM
5 LV
Trade mark No: 001176007 Type of mark: FigurativeFiling date: 11/05/1999 Date of
registration:13/06/2000
NiceClassification:
9, 14, 24 Status: RegisteredPublication of registration
Name of theowner:
LOUIS VUITTONMALLETIER (SociétéAnonyme)
Applicant’sreference:
7842
Trade markbasis:
CTM
6 LV
Trade mark No: 000015628 Type of mark: FigurativeFiling date: 01/04/1996 Date of
registration:11/11/1997
NiceClassification:
16, 18, 25 Status: RegisteredPublication of registration
Name of theowner:
LOUIS VUITTONMALLETIER (SociétéAnonyme)
Trade markbasis:
CTM
7 LV
Trade mark No: 000015602 Type of mark: FigurativeFiling date: 01/04/1996 Date of
registration:28/11/1997
NiceClassification:
16, 18, 25 Status: RegisteredPublication of registration
Name of theowner:
LOUIS VUITTONMALLETIER (SociétéAnonyme)
Trade markbasis:
CTM
| | | |
Version: 9.3.3
Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Avenida de Europa 4, E-03008 Alicante, Spain - Tel: +34 96 513 9400 - e-mail:
03/10/10 20.03OAMI-ONLINE - CTM-ONLINE - Detailed results
Side 1 af 1http://oami.europa.eu/CTMOnline/RequestManager/en_print_NoReg#
OHIM The Trade Marks and Designs Registration Office of the European Union
You are here: Home > Quality plus > Databases
CTM-ONLINE - Detailed results
Search results: Found 2
List of results: Detailed
Simple
Order by ID No Descending
| | | |
1 LOUIS VUITTON Trade mark No: 001172857 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 11/05/1999 Date ofregistration:
09/06/2000
NiceClassification:
9, 14, 24 Status: RegisteredPublication of registration
Name of theowner:
LOUIS VUITTONMALLETIER (SociétéAnonyme)
Applicant’sreference:
7828
Trade markbasis:
CTM
2 LOUIS VUITTON Trade mark No: 000015610 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 01/04/1996 Date ofregistration:
16/03/1998
NiceClassification:
16, 18, 25 Status: RegisteredPublication of registration
Name of theowner:
LOUIS VUITTONMALLETIER (SociétéAnonyme)
Trade markbasis:
CTM
| | | |
Version: 9.3.3
Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Avenida de Europa 4, E-03008 Alicante, Spain - Tel: +34 96 513 9400 - e-mail:
Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 21 af 22
EXHIBIT 2 Bag purchased by Ms. Holm in Portugal
Mai Andersen, Mikkel Jensen og Pia Kayser
Side 22 af 22
EXHIBIT 3 Authentic Louis Vuitton Speedy 35