Vuitton action legal first
It is believed the label has initiated proceedings against the owner of the Carrara Markets, TOEA, together with market manager John Rosenlund, alleging a number of stall operators at the market have been selling counterfeit Louis Vuitton merchandise.
Neither Carrara Markets nor LVM representatives were available for comment at the time of press.
It is understood LVM opted against taking action against the individual stall holders for trade mark infringement on the grounds the market owner and manager were jointly responsible for the counterfeit goods being carried by the stalls.
LVM claim TOEA and Rosenlund were informed a number of specific stallholders at the Carrara Markets were selling counterfeit merchandise that infringed the LVM trademark. Its claim centres around the basis that TOEA and Rosenlund's failure to warn these market stall operators and/or terminate their lease of their markets meant they were jointly responsible for the alleged breaches.
The case, believed to be the first of its kind in Australia, has been listed for trial in the Queensland Registry of the Federal Court on December 12. A similar case in the US, brought by jewellers Tiffany & Co against online auction house eBay, has yet to be concluded.
The attempt to dismiss the small fry in favour of the big fish is the latest salvo fired by the textile, clothing and footwear industry in its long-standing attempts to stamp out Australia's lucrative counterfeit industry. It is thought as much as 20% of the $6 billion worth of goods sold at Australian markets annually are counterfeit.
Middletons Lawyers senior partner Tony Watson, who acts for a number of well known brand owners including Diesel, SpA, and Converse Inc, said if LVM is successful in its claim, brand owners could potentially seek thousands or even millions of dollars worth of damages and costs from the owners of markets.
"Should these trademark owners be successful in bringing this action, it would mean that market owners, managers and websites facilitating the sale of goods would be placed with a heavy onus of policing the merchandise being sold by their market stall operators and/or on their websites. Furthermore, manufacturers of goods whose primary purpose for creating the relevant good is to infringe registered trademarks and/or copyright may also be liable."