Landlords beware of tenants selling counterfeit goods!
It has been recently confirmed in the Court of Appeal that brand owners can seek injunctions to prevent internet service providers from hosting on-line traders who are selling counterfeit goods.
A recent European decision has extended this principle to owners of physical market places - a potentially difficult position for landlords of retail spaces.
The case concerned a Market Hall in Prague, in which Delta Centre was a tenant. Delta Centre was, in turn, sub-letting spaces to individual traders who were selling counterfeit Tommy Hilfiger, Lacoste, Burberry and other well known brands.
Under consideration in this case was the Enforcement Directive. This is a piece of European legislation which provides various remedies that courts may grant in cases of infringement of intellectual property rights, in particular to prevent the sale of counterfeit goods.
The Directive grants to brand owners in the EU the ability to apply to the court for injunctions against ‘intermediaries’ – who are assisting (albeit “innocently”) with the infringement. The issue in this case was whether Delta Centre, as landlord of the market stalls, could be classified as an ‘intermediary’. Delta Centre’s contracts with the traders required compliance with relevant regulations and the traders were provided with brochures warning them that the sale of counterfeits was forbidden and may lead to termination of their rental contract.
Tommy Hilfiger asked the Czech courts to order, amongst other things, that Delta Centre: a) refrain from extending or concluding contracts with those who sold counterfeit goods; and b) refrain from extending or concluding other contracts that do not specifically prohibit infringement of Tommy Hilfiger’s (and others) intellectual property rights on penalty of termination.
The application was rejected by the High Court of Prague. The Court ruled that the provisions could not extend to the grant of a commercial licence to a market trader without absurdity(for example, by making electricity companies liable for providing the electricity that infringers use to make counterfeit goods). The brand owners then appealed to the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic who referred the question to the highest court of the EU (CJEU).
The CJEU disagreed with the High Court of Prague and ruled that persons who let retail space to traders who then use their pitches to sell counterfeit branded products, fall within the concept of ‘an intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right’. Accordingly in those circumstances, the brand owners may seek injunctions against the landlord as intermediary.
This is of course good news for brand owners, who now have an extra device in their arsenal in the fight against the sale of counterfeit goods. However, it places landlords in an awkward position.
This judgment does not mean that landlords are now ‘to blame’ for their tenants selling counterfeit goods. Any action against landlords will not extend to damages or accounts of profit; instead the remedy is an injunction to stop the continued sale of counterfeit goods.
The CJEU also made clear that any injunction granted must be equitable and proportionate; they cannot therefore be excessively expensive and must not create barriers to legitimate trade. So, for example, landlords do not have to “exercise general and permanent oversight” of their tenants 24 hours a day to check they are not selling counterfeit goods.
This ruling certainly does mean, however, that landlords can no longer turn a blind eye when they learn that counterfeit goods are being sold by their tenants. On the contrary, landlords must now co-operate in preventing counterfeits being sold from their premises.
One question which still appears to cause disagreement is who should bear the costs of complying with these injunctions. The English Court of Appeal has ruled that, whilst the brand owners must pay for the court action, internet service providers must bear the costs of blocking on-line infringers. Brand owners may therefore seek to extend this principle to physical premises, making landlords bear their own costs in dealing with infringement by their tenants. It would not be surprising if this were the subject of future disputes
Q&A: Am I insured for COVID-19?
Laura Bushaway writes for Estates Gazette on a recent claim under the “disease clause” of business interruption policy.
Looking beyond the benefitted land: confirmation that an objector’s wider property may be considered in applications to discharge/modify restrictive covenants
Read our recent case study on applicants who were prevented from developing a new house due to a restrictive covenant covering their land.
Further extension of coronavirus restrictions affecting residential properties: Where are we now?
The extension will be implemented from and including 31 March 2021 by the Coronavirus Act 2020.
Case Study: One Blackfriars Limited
An informative and positive judgment for administrators selling high-value property in distressed and complex scenarios.
Temporary restrictions on winding-up petitions extended until 30 June 2021
As the restrictions are extended, read what it means for you here.
InvestAfrica: Checking in or Checking out? Financing Africa’s Hotels in 2021
The discussion examined the strategies investors and financial institutions can implement to mitigate the effects of the pandemic.
Commercial rent arrears: what are the latest restrictions on landlords’ remedies this quarter day?
What you need to know for this Quarter Day.
To Promote or not to Promote, that is the Option: Top 10 Tips with Promotion Agreements
Providing you with the top ten tips with promotion agreements - what should you know?
Brexit and intellectual property: Gibraltar, the Isle of Man and
Charlotte looks at where else trade mark and design protection may be required following Brexit.
Q&A: Do the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020 apply to agricultural tenancies?
Reviewing whether the Electrical Safety Regulations apply to agricultural tenancies in the private rented sector.
Q&A: Parking privileges
James Souter and David Nicholls address a resident’s parking dilemma.
Diversification of landed estates – a trade mark lawyer’s advice...
Mary looks at the diversification of landed estates and offers her expert advice from a trade mark perspective
Property Patter: Business as usual? The impact of COVID-19 on commercial lease negotiations
What impact has COVID-19 had on commercial lease negotiations and will we see the effects last?
Doing Business Responsibly: Food & Beverage
A return to growth will be a priority post-pandemic for F&B businesses, and doing business responsibly could help you to achieve it
David Haines quoted by CoStar and Estates Gazette on the extension of the rent moratorium
The extension of the moratorium again “delivers another blow to commercial landlords”, with rent arrears already totaling around £4.5bn.
Property Patter: The Spring 2021 Budget – what news for property?
Join us as we review some of the measures introduced by Rishi Sunak to provide a boost to COVID-hit businesses and workers.
David Haines quoted by Estates Gazette on the end to the rent moratorium
The rent moratorium has effectively stopped landlords from evicting occupiers unable to pay rent since the start of the pandemic.
Property Professionals: Spring Budget Announcement
Join us as we discuss the highlights of the recent budget announcement.
Q&A: Terminating a contract – matters of materiality
Megan Davies and Nicholas Grant address a homebuyer’s query over a shrinking master bedroom.
Natalie Deuchar and Leonora Owens write for Pharmacy Business on the considerations to take into account when pharmacists look to obtain a new unit
Pharmacists should be aware of the law when considering obtaining a new unit.