THE BOTTOM LINE
- Significant Financial Penalties: Infringers can be ordered to pay damages, hand over all profits from counterfeit sales, and cover the brand owner’s full, real legal costs, which can be substantial even in “simple” cases.
- Forced Business Transparency: Courts will compel counterfeit sellers to disclose their entire operation, including supplier details, sales records, customer lists, and private communications, to help brand owners dismantle the wider network.
- Public Reputational Damage: Beyond sales bans and stock destruction, infringers can be forced to post a public court-ordered rectification on their own websites and social media channels, admitting to the trademark infringement for months.
THE DETAILS
In a clear warning to online sellers sourcing from unverified channels, the District Court of The Hague has handed down a stringent ruling against a sole trader selling counterfeit “Satisfyer” sexual wellness products. The case was brought by the brand’s owner, Triple A, after discovering the fakes being sold on major platforms like bol.com and Amazon, as well as the seller’s own website. Triple A took swift action, obtaining an immediate injunction and seizing goods and business records, which revealed the seller had knowingly imported thousands of counterfeit items from China and had even instructed suppliers on how to better replicate the genuine products.
The court found this to be a straightforward case of trademark infringement under the EU Trademark Regulation. The seller’s claim of ignorance was quickly dismissed in light of the seized evidence. The judgment underscores the powerful, cross-border tools available to brand owners. Because the case involved EU trademarks, the Dutch court issued an EU-wide injunction, effectively shutting down the infringing business across the entire single market. It also granted nearly all of the brand owner’s ancillary claims, demonstrating a zero-tolerance approach to deliberate counterfeiting.
This ruling holds critical lessons for CEOs and legal counsel. First, the financial risk extends far beyond lost profits on the infringing sales. The court referred the final calculation of damages to separate proceedings but affirmed the brand owner’s right to claim either damages or a full disgorgement of the infringer’s profits. Crucially, under Dutch IP law, the infringer was ordered to pay over €18,500 to cover the brand owner’s legal fees and costs—a stark reminder that the “loser pays” principle in IP cases can be financially crippling. Second, the operational consequences are severe. The court ordered the destruction of all remaining stock and mandated a two-month “public correction” on the seller’s website and social media, creating significant reputational harm. For any business operating online, this case is a powerful illustration of the severe legal and commercial fallout of failing to ensure supply chain integrity.
SOURCE
Source: Rechtbank Den Haag
