Il ruolo di Facebook nella presenza (conosciuta) di marchi contraffatti sul suo marketplace

Direct liability no, ma contributory si, dice il tribunale del Distr. Nord di New York 7.11.2023, caso 5:22-CV-1305 (MAD/ML), Car-Freshner v. Meta.

Si tratta del marchio del noto alberello deodorante di largo uso negli autoveicoli.

responsabilità diretta, no: <<In Tiffany, the Second Circuit concluded that eBay did not directly infringe on Tiffany’s
trademark where it resold genuine Tiffany goods. Tiffany, 600 F.3d at 103. Tiffany argued that
some of the goods being sold on eBay were counterfeit, which the Second Circuit explained “is
not a basis for a claim of direct trademark infringement against eBay, especially inasmuch as it is
undisputed that eBay promptly removed all listings that Tiffany challenged as counterfeit and
took affirmative steps to identify and remove illegitimate Tiffany goods.” Id. The Second Circuit
continued, “[t]o impose liability because eBay cannot guarantee the genuineness of all of the
purported Tiffany products offered on its website would unduly inhibit the lawful resale of
genuine Tiffany goods.” Id.
Although Plaintiffs allege that Meta did not promptly remove the infringing products from
its websites, there are no allegations that Meta “placed” the infringing marks on any goods. 15
U.S.C. § 1127(1)(A); see also Lops v. YouTube, LLC, No. 3:22-CV-843, 2023 WL 2349597, *3
(D. Conn. Mar. 3, 2023) (footnote omitted) (“[T]he exhibits indicate that the videos were created
or posted by third parties rather than by YouTube. But YouTube cannot be subject to direct
liability for trademark infringement based on videos uploaded by third parties”);
Nike, Inc. v. B&H Customs Servs., Inc., 565 F. Supp. 3d 498, 508 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (“[T]he
infringer must have some intention to sell, advertise, or distribute the infringing product or service
in order for strict liability to attach. Mere unwitting transportation of another’s goods is not enough . . . “). As such, the Court grants Meta’s motion and dismisses the direct liability claims>>.

ma contributory liability, si, visto che Meta sapeva delle dopcumentate contestazioni dell’attore:

<<Plaintiffs’ allegations are different from those in Business Casual Holdings because Plaintiffs allege that Meta did not remove the infringing post or products from Facebook or Instagram until Plaintiffs filed their original complaint with this Court. See Dkt. No. 13 at ¶¶ 114-
15, 117, 119, 121. Plaintiffs allege that even after they notified Facebook and Instagram of the alleged infringement, both websites advertised and offered the infringing products. See id. at ¶¶ 110. Accepting Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, they have sufficiently stated a contribution claim as they allege that Meta had knowledge of the alleged infringement and instead of removing the posts or products from its websites, it continued to advertise the products. Thus, the Court denies Meta’s motion to dismiss>>.

La sentenza riproduce pure i marchi a confronto (p. 48-49), ravvisandone la sufficiente confondibilità per rigettare l’istanza di dismiss di Meta e per proseguire il processo