Today, the movement of goods is more global and faster than ever before. As market participants, logistics companies are involved in imports and exports in a wide variety of jurisdictions. However, with the internationalisation of trade, there is also a growing risk of unwittingly becoming involved in legal violations, particularly trademark infringements.
For logistics service providers in particular, who act as pure service partners in the supply chain rather than as sellers, the question arises: Where does their own legal responsibility begin when third parties ship goods that infringe trademarks?
The Regional Court of Düsseldorf answered this question with remarkable clarity in case 37 O 42/24 – confirmed by the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (20 U 9/25 of 7 August 2025): The logistics company can be held jointly liable as a so-called ‘interferer’. It is not possible to avoid liability as a ‘mere vicarious agent’. Rather, logistics companies must expect to be targeted themselves in future as ‘enablers’ of trademark infringements.
The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (20 U 9/25) confirms the decision of the Regional Court of Düsseldorf (37 O 42/24)
The ruling concerns an injunction sought by a major sporting goods manufacturer that is the owner of various registered EU trademarks. Jerseys bearing these trademarks were sold in Europe via various online shops in China without the trademark owner's consent. The respondent, a logistics service provider based in Germany, provided its address as the return address for the packages. It also acted as the return address for undeliverable goods and stored them. These services were used for the shipment of counterfeit goods.
At the request of the trademark owner, the Regional Court of Düsseldorf issued a preliminary injunction by order and later confirmed it in its ruling. The appeal to the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf was unsuccessful.
The Regional Court of Düsseldorf ruled that even if the trademark infringement was committed by third parties – namely the manufacturer and distributor of the counterfeit goods – as perpetrators or participants, the logistics service provider was liable as a interferer. Even though the respondent did not sell or produce the goods itself, it enabled the trademark infringement because without the provision of its address, the parcels would not have reached the European market. A logistics service provider could be liable for interference if it deliberately and adequately contributed to the infringement of trademark rights and violated its inspection and monitoring obligations. In this respect, there was no general obligation to check all shipments without cause. However, the logistics service provider was obliged to take reasonable inspection and control measures after receiving specific indications of trademark infringements.
According to the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf in the appeal proceedings, the specific allegation is that of ‘facilitating’ infringements. The issue is not whether the logistics provider itself infringes trademark rights, but whether it facilitates infringements by third parties.
It is therefore incumbent on the logistics service provider to check whether the goods in question infringe any rights. The objection that such checks are technically or economically impossible was rejected. The court clarified that although logistics companies are not required to carry out full checks, they are required to take appropriate organisational measures to significantly reduce the risk of infringements. Random checks should be carried out, especially in cases of obvious infringement. Imports into Germany from outside the EEA, particularly from China, should be classified as suspicious, as trademark rights are not regularly exhausted in this respect (Section 24 MarkenG, Art. 15 UMV).
What does this mean when dealing with goods that may infringe the law?
The ruling clearly shows that logistics companies are not just neutral transport providers, but can quickly become the focus of trademark liability. Anyone who provides addresses, warehouses or shipping services for third parties runs the risk of being held liable for trademark infringements. This can have serious consequences, ranging from warnings to legal action to enforce injunctions, claims for information and damages. But how can a logistics service provider protect itself against this? Managing directors should therefore introduce preventive compliance structures to minimise liability risks.
Contractual partners should therefore be checked in a KYC process to determine whether there are any grounds for suspicion of systematic trademark infringements, for example in the case of cheap online shops from third countries. If necessary, contracts and general terms and conditions should then be supplemented with assurances and penalties with regard to trademark infringements. The protection provided by corporate liability insurance may need to be supplemented to cover possible risks arising from trademark infringement and information claims. Random checks should be carried out and documented systematically, depending on the degree of risk. Employees should be instructed and trained accordingly.
Last but not least, a ‘notice-and-staydown’ procedure should be introduced, as is already common practice among operators of online platforms. This ensures that, following notifications from trademark owners, not only are the specific shipments in question withheld, but future similar infringements are also prevented. If a trademark owner does contact you, it is important to respond quickly, professionally and knowledgeably, to document the communication and to work proactively with trademark owners wherever possible in order to avoid legal escalation.
It is therefore important to be aware of the risks involved in handling trademark-infringing goods and to take appropriate risk minimisation measures. Please feel free to contact us for further information.
'/%3e%3c/svg%3e){kind=small}
'/%3e%3c/svg%3e){kind=small}
