On August 7, 2025, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (Second Chamber) delivered a significant judgment in Case 20 U 9/25 between a German sportswear manufacturer and a logistics service provider. The decision provides important clarification on the secondary liability of logistics companies that facilitate direct shipments from China to EU end customers, particularly regarding monitoring duties if such business models create structural trademark infringement risks.
1. Key takeaways for logistics service providers
- Providing a German address for returns to enable direct shipping from China constitutes adequately causal contribution to infringement
- Business models with structural infringement risks trigger heightened monitoring duties after notice
- Branded goods in single packages from China are inevitably non-exhausted and therefore infringing
- Service providers must implement reasonable preventive measures such as sender verification in advance
- Lack of physical possession does not exempt service providers from liability if the service enables market access
2. Background of the case
The case concerned a leading global sportswear manufacturer and proprietor of EU trademarks for clothing. The trademark owner challenged a German logistics service provider whose business model consisted of providing German addresses to Chinese logistics companies for postal dispatch and acting as a return address for undeliverable goods.
The defendant’s service enabled single-item shipments directly from China to German end customers – a critical component as the German logistics company DHL requires a German postal address for domestic shipping. Through test purchases in the fall of 2023 and May 2024, the trademark owner discovered counterfeit football jerseys bearing its trademarks shipped from Chinese online shops, with the defendant consistently listed as sender. After the defendant ignored a cease-and-desist letter dated January 15, 2024, the trademark owner obtained a preliminary injunction on June 12, 2024.
3. Analysis of the court’s decision
3.1. The defendant’s arguments
The defendant contended it should not be held liable as a secondary infringer for two main reasons:
No adequately causal contribution
The defendant argued that merely permitting the use of its address did not constitute adequately causal contribution since: (i) successfully delivered packages reached customers without the defendant gaining possession, (ii) trademark infringement was already completed upon entry into the EU before a handover to DHL, and (iii) even for returns, its provision for renewed delivery could be disregarded without affecting entry into the EEA. The core argument was that “no possession = no influence = no causality”.
