While the shift towards online selling is undeniable, it is important to recognise that traditional brick-and-mortar shops continue to play a valuable role in retail. Ten years on we look at the important decision in Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC and Others v Delta Center a.s. (C 494/15) and its implications for landlords of tenants who infringe intellectual property.

Published: 16 March 2026
Authors: Eloise Di Pasqua & Shojibur Rahman

Decision: Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC and Others v Delta Center a.s. (C 494/15)
Court: Court of Justice of the European Union
Judgment Date: 7 July 2016
Decision: Here
Key Issues: Intermediary liability, trade mark enforcement, counterfeit goods, scope of injunctions, responsibility of marketplace operators

Background

The dispute focused on the Pražská tržnice market in Prague, where independent traders were repeatedly caught selling counterfeit branded goods. The landlord, Delta Center, managed the market by leasing stall spaces, but did not participate directly in the sale of any goods.

Luxury brands such as Tommy Hilfiger, Lacoste, and Burberry made the bold decision to target the landlord of the sprawling Prague market. Their intent was to challenge whether a landlord facilitating trading could be compelled to help prevent ongoing trade mark violations. In doing so, they challenged the status quo of intellectual property enforcement, raising a question that remains highly relevant: can landlords be held responsible when their premises are used for the sale of counterfeit goods?

The issue ultimately came before the Court of Justice of the European Union, which was asked to decide if a landlord of a physical market could be subject to injunctions requiring them to help prevent trade mark infringement by their tenants. In particular, could a landlord providing the infrastructure for infringement be classified as an ‘intermediary’ under EU intellectual property law?

Why was the landlord challenged?

The brand owners chose to focus on the landlord, not the individual traders, for several reasons:

• counterfeit goods were being sold repeatedly within the marketplace;
• the landlord was providing the commercial infrastructure that enabled these sales;
• enforcement against individual traders was largely ineffective, as sellers could easily vanish or return under new identities.

The argument was that landlords were in a unique position to implement reasonable, proportionate safeguards, such as enhanced contractual controls or oversight, to curb the sale of counterfeit goods. The crucial legal question was whether a landlord, even without directly selling infringing products, could be required to act when their marketplace was repeatedly used for trade mark infringement.

Decision

The Court of Justice delivered a landmark ruling: operators of physical marketplaces can indeed be treated as intermediaries if their facilities are used by others to infringe intellectual property rights. This decision established that the same enforcement principles applying to online platforms also apply to traditional markets.

The ruling was based on several key findings:

• leasing trading space is a commercial service enabling sales to the public;
• intermediaries may be subject to injunctions requiring them to help prevent infringements;
• physical and online marketplaces are treated alike for enforcement purposes;
• crucially, the Court stressed that injunctions must be proportionate, and landlords cannot be obliged to constantly monitor all traders.

Commentary

This judgment aligned physical marketplace landlords with the established doctrine of intermediary liability, previously focused on online platforms. By confirming landlords as intermediaries, the Court expanded the options for brand owners seeking effective action against persistent counterfeiting.

Landlords are required to take proportionate, reasonable steps once they become aware of infringement, striking a balance between protecting trade marks and recognising market operators’ practical limits.

For landlords and market organisers, this serves as a lasting reminder: providing commercial space is not a neutral act when it is used for illegal trade. Awareness and inaction can trigger court-ordered obligations, even if the landlord is not directly involved in selling infringing goods.

The Court’s decision confirmed that enforcement can focus on the landlord who enables infringement, broadening the toolkit for trade mark owners. This significantly strengthened practical enforcement options for trade mark owners.

Key lessons for landlords

This ten-year-old ruling still sends a clear message to businesses providing commercial infrastructure:

• you may be required to act even if you are not the infringer. Leasing stalls to traders who use them for counterfeit sales can trigger court-ordered obligations;
• passivity is risky. Repeated problems demand reasonable, proportionate steps, such as improved trader vetting or clearer contracts;
• physical markets are aligned with online platforms so that the same principles apply to both;
• landlords are not automatically liable for damages, but they cannot remain passive when their premises are used for illegal trade.

Key lessons for brand owners

• intermediaries are integral to enforcement. Platforms and market operators may face obligations when their services enable infringement;
• physical and digital markets are treated alike. The same enforcement principles apply in both environments;
• injunctions are effective tools and the courts can require intermediaries to take proportionate preventative steps;
• targeting landlords can be more efficient. Acting against the landlord is often more practical than pursuing individual sellers.

Conclusion

Ten years on, Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC and Others v Delta Center a.s. stands as a reminder: landlords cannot avoid responsibility merely because they do not personally sell counterfeit goods. If their services enable infringement, courts can require them to act.

For brand owners, this strengthened enforcement tools. For operators, it highlights that providing commercial space carries legal responsibilities. As the distinction between online and physical marketplaces continues to blur, the law treats them consistently - a lesson that remains as relevant as ever.