Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (OLG) confirms liability of intermediaries: logistics service provider liable for counterfeit jerseys with trademark infringement

The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (OLG) ruled on 07.08.2025 (Az. 20 U 9/25) that a logistics service provider is liable as an intermediary for trademark right infringements. The decision particularly concerns e-commerce shipping models and demonstrates what verification duties apply to service providers. For businesses, the ruling provides important guidance.

Trademark infringement through shipments from China – a constellation with considerable legal implications

The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (OLG) had to deal with an appeal in interlocutory proceedings from a logistics service provider who, on behalf of a Chinese conglomerate, enabled the delivery of goods to Germany. Specifically, the case concerned football jerseys bearing registered Union trade marks – without the consent of the trade mark proprietor, a globally renowned sports goods manufacturer.

The service provider did not itself act as a seller, but merely provided its German address as a sender address and served as a return address for undeliverable packages. On this basis, it considered itself wrongly accused and sought to overturn the interlocutory injunction issued against it.

However, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (OLG) dismissed the appeal.

The core finding: indirect participation can also lead to liability

At the centre of the proceedings was the question of whether the logistics service provider could be held liable for counterfeit jerseys brought into the EU internal market via its address, even though it was neither the manufacturer nor seller of the goods. The court clarified: yes, it is liable, but not as a perpetrator, but rather as a so-called intermediary.

What was decisive was the deliberate and adequately causal participation of the service provider in the trademark right infringement. By providing its address and agreeing to receive undelivered packages, it enabled the import of the infringing products whilst circumventing the usual control mechanisms such as customs clearance.

The court unequivocally stated that such a business model was "highly problematic" and involved an increased risk of legal violations. The defendant enabled individual package shipments directly from China to private individuals. Trade goods in these packages were, if not counterfeit in any event, certainly not exhausted goods. No trade mark proprietor would consent to direct imports from China. Whoever acts in this context must implement preventive measures in order to avoid personal liability.

No general verification obligation – but concrete measures are reasonable

The Higher Regional Court (OLG) emphasised that logistics service providers are in principle not subject to unsolicited verification obligations, particularly when they have no access to successfully delivered packages. Nevertheless, obligations to verify and prevent arise as soon as there is an indication of possible trademark infringements.

This was precisely the case here: the trade mark proprietor had already notified the logistics service provider in January 2024 of the abuse of its address. Subsequent test purchases confirmed the continuation of the practice – despite the cease-and-desist letter. This was sufficient for liability as an intermediary, the court ruled.

Reasonable measures include in particular:

• verification of senders before dispatch
• introduction of control systems (e.g. "notice-and-takedown" procedures)
• blocking of known online retailers that regularly infringe trade marks
• where necessary, redirection of suspect packages to own warehouse for inspection

Information and delivery claims affirmed

In addition to the injunction, the Higher Regional Court (OLG) also affirmed further claims:

• information on origin and distribution channels pursuant to § 19 Abs. 1 MarkenG
• delivery of infringing goods to secure the destruction claim (§ 18 MarkenG)

The logistics service provider had argued that it did not know the contents of the packages and could not conduct inspections without jeopardising its business model. This argument did not persuade the court: in view of the serious legal violations, it was reasonable to implement control mechanisms – particularly as the practice in practice concerned almost exclusively counterfeit products.

Ruling with signal effect for the logistics and e-commerce industry

The decision has far-reaching significance for practice. Logistics service providers, fulfillment providers and operators of shipping platforms must be aware that they can be held liable not only for their own, but also for trademark right infringements enabled by them.

Hiding behind the mere role of service provider does not provide protection if, in fact, one's own business model promotes legal violations. Especially in cross-border shipping models – such as from China to the EU – expectations of preventive mechanisms and control structures are growing.

Conclusion

Businesses active in the field of logistics, shipping and fulfillment should use the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (OLG) ruling as an occasion to legally review and secure their processes.

Our law firm AVANTCORE has extensive expertise in trademark law, in particular in judicial enforcement of trade mark rights and defence against allegations of trademark infringement. We advise companies preventively and proactively – nationally and internationally.

If you wish to protect yourself against similar liability risks or are already facing allegations of trademark infringement, we are happy to be your competent contact.