The case saw Coty Germany, a seller of luxury cosmetic goods and its distributor, Parfümerie Akzente, disputing over a contractual clause which prevented the distributor from selling the luxury products on third–party platforms which operate in a discernible manner towards consumers. The distributor was free, however, to use their own electronic shop window or third-party platforms not discernible to the consumers. Coty Germany brought proceedings against Parfümerie Akzente in order to prevent it from selling on the platform “amazon.de”.
The Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main asked the CJEU, essentially, whether this clause is lawful under competition law (the implications of this question for trade mark owners in distribution agreements are extremely relevant).
According to the press release, the CJEU stated that:
“…a selective distribution system for luxury goods, designed primarily to preserve the luxury image of those goods, does not breach the prohibition of agreements, decision and concerted practices laid down in EU law, provided that the following conditions are met: (i) resellers are chosen on the basis of objective criteria of a qualitative nature, laid down uniformly for all potential resellers and not applied in a discriminatory fashion; and (ii) the criteria laid down must not go beyond what is necessary.”
Furthermore it held that, a contractual clause in a selective distribution agreement that: (i) has the objective of preserving the luxury image of the goods in question; (ii) it is laid down uniformly and not applied in a discriminatory fashion; and (iii) it is proportionate in the light of the objective pursued; is not in principle precluded to stop authorised distributors from using, in a discernible manner, third party platforms for internet sales, if these principles are met. It will be the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main which will have to determine whether these conditions are met in the case at hand.
Also, the Court clarified the vexata quaestio of the scope of the Pierre Fabre(C-439/09) judgment. According to the press release, it held that in Pierre Fabre it did not intend to set out a statement of principle for which the preservation of a luxury image of products cannot justify a restriction of competition. In that case there was a blanket prohibition on internet sales justified by the undertaking with the preservation of the luxury image of its products, which on those terms could not be justified.
The judgment is available here (only in German and French for the moment).
Stay tuned for a more thorough analysis!