CLASS 46
Now in its twelfth year, Class 46 is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice. This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.
Want to receive Class 46 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.
Click here subscribe for free.
Who we all are...
TUESDAY, 10 FEBRUARY 2009
Denmark: Burberry counterfeit purses – Supreme Court’s decision concerning damages/compensation
Before the Supreme Court, the company behind the chain, Zebra A/S, did not contest that the purses constituted a trade mark infringement of Burberry Ltd.'s rights. Thus, the issue before the Supreme Court regarded the question of damages and compensation, only.
It was held by the Court that the fact that Burberry’s purses were exclusive products, whereas Zebra A/S’ counterfeit products were cheap copies, implied that the goods were directed to different market segments and different types of consumers. Since the goods for this reason could not be said to be substitutable, Burberry had not suffered lost profits, and damages could thus not be awarded.
However, the Court found that a certain degree of “market disturbance” had taken place, and Burberry was awarded compensation in the amount of DKK 100,000 (EUR 13,500).
(The Danish Maritime and Commercial Court awarded DKK 150,000 (EUR 20,000). Burberry had claimed DKK 1,000,000 (EUR 135,000)). Posted by: Janne Britt Hansen @ 17.51
Tags: Denmark. trade mark infringement,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA959
Denmark: Burberry counterfeit purses – Supreme Court’s decision concerning damages/compensation
Before the Supreme Court, the company behind the chain, Zebra A/S, did not contest that the purses constituted a trade mark infringement of Burberry Ltd.'s rights. Thus, the issue before the Supreme Court regarded the question of damages and compensation, only.
It was held by the Court that the fact that Burberry’s purses were exclusive products, whereas Zebra A/S’ counterfeit products were cheap copies, implied that the goods were directed to different market segments and different types of consumers. Since the goods for this reason could not be said to be substitutable, Burberry had not suffered lost profits, and damages could thus not be awarded.
However, the Court found that a certain degree of “market disturbance” had taken place, and Burberry was awarded compensation in the amount of DKK 100,000 (EUR 13,500).
(The Danish Maritime and Commercial Court awarded DKK 150,000 (EUR 20,000). Burberry had claimed DKK 1,000,000 (EUR 135,000)). Posted by: Janne Britt Hansen @ 17.51
Tags: Denmark. trade mark infringement,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA959
Reader Comments: 0
Post a Comment
MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.
The Class 46 Archive
