The European Court of Justice has established a significant ruling in which Amazon could be held responsible for distributing counterfeit Christian Louboutin products. The decision, released on December 22, clarifies that Amazon may be seen as using Christian Louboutin’s trademark within the EU if a site visitor perceives that the retailer is the one distributing the brand’s shoes directly. This interpretation places additional responsibility on the marketplace when it comes to visual and branding cues that may lead consumers to believe a product is sold or endorsed by the brand itself.
The ruling further indicates that liability could extend to situations in which Amazon fails to clearly separate its own listings from those of third-party sellers and continues to provide support services to third-party sellers, such as storage and fulfillment. The implications touch the core of how online marketplaces manage brand integrity and counterfeit risks while balancing the needs of sellers who rely on the platform for reach and logistics.
Christian Louboutin, a French luxury footwear house known for its iconic red soles, welcomed the decision as a tool to bolster brand protection. Alexis Muro, the brand’s chief executive officer, framed the outcome as a victory for any brand that actively protects its craftsmanship and distinctive signatures. The court’s stance is seen as affirming stronger guardrails around how marketplace platforms present items bearing a designer’s name or logo, and how they manage associations between listing sources and brand identity.
The brand had initiated two legal actions in 2019, one targeting the Luxembourg District Court and the other brought before the Brussels Companies Court. The cases aimed to curb the use of the brand’s recognizable red sole and to halt the sale of counterfeit versions on the Amazon platform. By challenging the marketplace in these jurisdictions, Christian Louboutin sought to deter the distribution of imitations and to safeguard the integrity of its brand imagery across online retail spaces.
This development reflects a broader push by luxury houses to maintain strict control over how their designs are displayed and sold online. The ruling does not necessarily condemn every listing linked to the platform, but it does underscore a clear expectation that marketplaces actively police counterfeit activity and differentiate clearly between direct brand channels and third-party offerings. In practice, the decision could influence how Amazon and similar platforms manage listing verifications, seller onboarding, and the visibility of authentic vs counterfeit products. It also hints at potential shifts in how brand owners collaborate with marketplaces to implement stronger anti-counterfeiting measures while preserving the consumer experience.
From a brand protection perspective, the decision highlights the importance of transparent listing practices and robust brand governance on large marketplaces. For consumers, it reinforces the ability to distinguish between items that originate with the designer and those that arrive through third-party sellers. It also raises questions about the responsibilities of online platforms to monitor trademark use and to intervene when there is a risk of consumer confusion. The case demonstrates how trademark rights can be exercised within the ecosystem of global e commerce and how brands can leverage legal avenues to protect their reputations and product integrity in a challenging online environment.