NEWS

CJEU: Infringing “possession” covers stock held abroad—and also indirect possession

EuGH, Urt. v. 01.08.2025 – C-76/24 (Tradeinn Retail Services / PH)

 Contents

Background

In the main proceedings, Tradeinn Retail Services S. L. (TRS), established in Spain, and PH, proprietor of German trade marks for diving equipment and accessories, disputed injunctive relief. TRS promoted and sold diving accessories under signs identical to the German marks, inter alia via its own website and the marketplace amazon.de. 

Following decisions by lower courts, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) asked how “possession” of infringing goods should be interpreted—especially where stock is held in another EU Member State and where control is exercised indirectly via logistics/warehouse service providers. 

Decision

The CJEU answered two key questions on the Trade Marks Directive (Directive (EU) 2015/2436) in a way that safeguards effective protection: 

First, the proprietor of a trade mark protected in one Member State may prohibit a third party from possessing goods under an infringing sign in another Member Statewhere that possession is intended to offer the goods for sale or place them on the market in the protection state. In other words, “possession” is not confined to the protection territory if it is a preparatory step to an offer/marketing directed at that territory (e.g., online offers targeting consumers there). 

Second, the Court clarified what it means to “possess” goods: it is sufficient that the third party has supervisory or managerial authority over the person who has direct and physical control of the goods. “Possession” therefore also covers indirect but actual control, not only the situation where the infringer physically stores the goods. 

Relevance for e-commerce and supply chains

This decision is particularly important for cross-border online selling models (marketplaces, webshops, fulfilment, warehousing and logistics). The CJEU reiterates that online offers can be trade mark relevant even if servers or goods are located outside the protection state, provided the offer is directed at consumers in that state; mere website accessibility is not necessarily enough—indicators such as delivery areas matter. 

To the point

  • Trade mark owners may prohibit “possession” even where stock is held elsewhere in the EU, if intended for offering/marketing in the protection state.
  • “Possession” does not require physical access—indirect control over warehousing/transport actors can suffice.
  • In online trade, the key is whether offers/ads target consumers in the protection state; delivery information can be a strong indicator.
  • Fulfilment/logistics structures do not automatically shield sellers from injunctions where the seller controls the distribution.
  • Practically relevant for compliance in listings, stock setups and cross-border marketplace operations.

 

Source: Infocuria

MORE NEWS
Trademark Law

BGH “Mehmet Efendi”: No exhaustion from placing goods on the market in Turkey – association agreement does not extend the EEA

The BGH confirms: Placing EU trade mark goods on the market in Turkey does not trigger exhaustion within the EEA. The EEC–Turkey association framework does not extend the territorial scope of exhaustion; parallel imports into the EEA can be prohibited without the proprietor’s consent.
Trademark Law

BGH “LA BIOSTHETIQUE”: German courts have jurisdiction for targeted online advertising – supplier disclosure may be disproportionate

The BGH aligns international jurisdiction for online trademark infringement with the target market: what matters is where the addressed consumers/traders are located—not the server location or the advertiser’s seat. It also held that disclosure of suppliers/prior owners may exceptionally be disproportionate where the infringement lies solely in the presentation of exhausted goods.
Trademark Law

General Court: “Eco” may still shape the overall impression despite being descriptive

The General Court clarifies that descriptive elements can still matter in the comparison of signs—especially when placed at the beginning and drawing attention due to their length/position.
AI / Personality Rights

LG Hamburg: AI-generated X post remains attributable to the account operator

The Regional Court of Hamburg held that a continuing defamatory false statement on X remains unlawful under the law of statements even if the post was generated by AI. The account operator can be held responsible for the published content.
AI

Cologne Higher Regional Court: Meta may provisionally use public Facebook and Instagram data for AI training

The Cologne Higher Regional Court rejected an interim injunction against Meta’s announced use of publicly shared Facebook and Instagram data for AI training. In its summary assessment, the court considered the processing likely lawful, in particular on the basis of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR.
AI / Copyright

Higher Regional Court of Hamburg: Downloading a photo for an AI training dataset may be permissible under TDM and the research exception

The Higher Regional Court of Hamburg held that downloading an online-accessible photo in order to compare image and description for an AI training dataset may fall within Section 44b German Copyright Act. The court additionally found that Section 60d German Copyright Act could apply because both the dataset creation and its later AI use qualified as scientific research.

Karin Simon
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Susanne Graeser
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Uhlandstr. 2
80336 Munich
Germany

Karin Simon
Rechtsanwältin
Fachanwältin für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Susanne Graeser
Rechtsanwältin
Fachanwältin für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Uhlandstr. 2
D-80336 München