Xavier Koehoorn: Schadebegroting in merkenzaken tegen een nalatige (online) tussenpersoon
03-07-2025 Print this page
Is de buitenlandse (Estse) nationale einduitspraak van eerder dit jaar tegen een ISP over schadebegroting na IE inbreuk interessant voor op Boek9? Uiteraard. Xavier was ongeveer 5 jaar bij deze rechtszaken betrokken als in-house legal counsel aan de zijde van de eisende organisatie. De uitspraak is van 24 januari 2025 door het hof in Tallinn en is gevolgd op de prejudiciële uitspraak van het HvJ-EU uit al weer 2018 (C-521/17). Artikel 13 Handhavingsrichtlijn en het OTK-arrest komen ook aan de orde. Er zijn bij mijn weten niet heel veel gepubliceerde uitspraken over schadebegroting in merkenzaken, zeker niet tegen een nalatige (internet)tussenpersoon.
Estonian appeals court on calculation of damages due to ISP’s negligence in takedown of counterfeit webshops: trademark holder’s gross profit margin most relevant
In 2019, the national proceedings after the preliminary ruling in EU Court of Justice (ECJ) Case C-521/17 (Deepak Mehta) landed on my desk at REACT. The case involved internet domain names and websites containing the trademarks of Burberry, FitFlop, G-STAR, New Era Cap, Pandora, Parajumpers, PUMA Group and Timberland.
This case against Mr. Deepak Mehta (doing business as Webexxpurts, Fiber Grid OÜ and Sonjara OÜ) & Inter Connects Inc. was long-running: since 2014.
He was the registered owner (at RIPE NCC) of several IP address ranges. Those IP addresses were then linked to infringing domain names and webshops.
In the 2018 preliminary ruling, the ECJ had expanded the ‘active role’ criterion of L’Oréal v eBay: there is also no ‘safe harbor’ exemption (limitation of liability) if information society services providers (ISP) play an active role by *allowing their customers to* optimise their online sales activity. Mehta was essentially acting as a ‘proxy’ by allowing his customers to use domain names and websites anonymously.
In 2021, the Estonian Supreme Court indeed confirmed the lack of a limitation of liability for Deepak and that in any case after being notified he acted negligently by “failing do his best to end the infringement on the relevant websites”.
Deepak as an ISP was held to be jointly and severally liable for the IP infringement damage, together with the direct (primary) infringers of the trademarks, and ordered to pay the legal fees.
Now, in its 24 January 2025 decision, the Tallinn Circuit Court (Tallinna Ringkonnakohus) finally confirms the damages judgment appealed by Deepak:
If it’s not possible to calculate specific damages, the loss of profit of TM holders can be calculated in the abstract; the benefits usually expected based on the circumstances.
The websites offered dozens of pages of counterfeit trademarked products.
The aggregate price of the depicted (infringing) goods alone was EUR 179540. The sale of counterfeits replaces the sale of original products: rightsholders were deprived of the opportunity to sell their products in at least the stated amount.
This is to be offset by a profit margin. But whose profit margin? The court decides that the (gross) profit margins of the trademark proprietors (e.g. Pandora’s gross profit margin of 61% in Estonia at the time of the infringement) are the most relevant in determining the damages awarded, not the margins of the defendants.
However, as the plaintiff did not object to it, because it was close to Pandora’s margin, and slightly more favourable to the defendant, the average margin (59.04%) of Deepak and his companies was applied.
Award: € 106000.
The Circuit Court notes this is in accordance with Article 13 of the EU IPR Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC) the OTK judgment (C-367/15, IEPT20170125).
