The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf had to rule on a practical setup for cross-border e-commerce logistics. Essentially, the case concerned a service provider based in Germany who provided a German sender and return address for logistics companies not based in the internal market – namely from China – provided a German sender and return address, bundled returns, and made them available for redelivery on instruction. The proceedings were triggered by test purchases made by a sporting goods manufacturer; the court linked the trademark infringements proven by these purchases to the service provider's involvement in providing addresses and handling returns. The Senate classifies the business model as risky and emphasizes: Anyone who provides the last mile or the returns backbone for direct imports from third countries creates a particular opportunity to facilitate the flow of trademark-infringing goods and must therefore take reasonable precautions.
Particular emphasis is placed on the specific risk structure of the business in question here: The logistics chains relevant to Chinese online retailers often organize advance payment of customs duties, taxes, and fees, thereby minimizing the risk of individual packages being subjected to intensive customs controls. This arrangement—which is economically efficient and legally permissible as long as legitimate goods are being transported—also makes the service particularly attractive for shipping products that infringe on trademark rights. In this context, the Senate refers to the doctrine of exhaustion under trademark law: although original goods are manufactured in China on a large scale for brand manufacturers, they typically reach the EEA in container networks via manufacturers/distributors. In contrast, individual packages sent directly by a Chinese online shop to end customers in the EEA are not normally exhausted (Art. 15(1) UMV); there is no placing on the market by the trademark owner or with their consent in the EEA. Particularly in the case of branded fan merchandise, an infringement is therefore "easy to recognize" – a finding that raises the bar for reasonable measures.
Against this background, the Higher Regional Court formulates clear expectations for the organization of logistics service providers: In any case, it is reasonable to have the senders provided electronically in advance by the clients, to check them, and to block conspicuous senders. Even a simple internet search shows that relevant shop names almost exclusively advertise jerseys bearing club and manufacturer brands; in such constellations, trademark-infringing goods are almost inevitable. Anyone who nevertheless participates without taking risk-minimizing precautions is no longer acting neutrally in terms of liability, according to the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf.
The basics of liability for interference – practical information for logistics
Distributor liability serves to enforce injunctive relief against actors who, although not perpetrators or participants in the infringement, nevertheless contribute to it willingly and in an adequately causal manner. "Contribution" means not only direct execution, but can also include support for an independent action by third parties, provided that there were legal and factual possibilities to prevent it. The legal consequence is usually injunctive relief, not damages. These guiding principles are established case law of the Federal Court of Justice and were applied by the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf.
At the same time, an important limitation applies: liability for interference may not be extended indefinitely to uninvolved third parties. It presupposes a breach of reasonable inspection and monitoring obligations, the scope of which is determined by the role and function of the party being held liable, the riskiness of the business model, and the possibilities for gaining knowledge. With regard to goods logistics and transport, the Federal Court of Justice has expressly emphasized that unwarranted, general inspection of all goods taken into possession or transported is unreasonable because this would place a disproportionate burden on the movement of goods. Only when there are concrete indications—such as a warning letter, customs notice, repeated identical returns suspected of being counterfeit, or internal hits—do increased inspection and, if necessary, intervention obligations arise. The extent of what is necessary increases with the obviousness: If the infringement is easily recognizable, further measures are reasonable; if the legal situation is unclear or requires in-depth expertise, the obligations are correspondingly lower. Ultimately, measures must not go so far as to undermine the business model economically. This balance between effectiveness and proportionality has shaped case law for years and is consistently applied in the Düsseldorf ruling.
This line is also supported by EU law: Article 11, sentence 3 of Enforcement Directive 2004/48/EC empowers the courts to order effective, proportionate, and dissuasive measures not only to end, but also to prevent future infringements – without hindering legitimate trade. Enforcement measures can be averted if the service providers concerned can prove that they have taken all reasonable steps. This basic concept of a "reasonable package of measures" is identical to German liability for interference and opens up typical logistics-based organizational solutions instead of blanket full controls.
What this means for your day-to-day business
Applied to warehousing, fulfillment, and shipping, four guidelines can be formulated that will help you navigate reliably, especially in the context of direct imports from third countries: First, there are no full inspections without cause. You are not required to open every package as standard or to legally verify every stored product. Such total checks would be unreasonable and would place a disproportionate burden on the efficient movement of goods. Secondly, obligations only arise when there are indications. If you receive concrete evidence—a warning letter, a customs notice, repeated identical returns suspected of being counterfeit, or an internal hit—you must take the available, economically reasonable steps to clarify the situation and prevent it from happening again. Thirdly, obviousness counts. The more clearly a legal violation is recognizable to you—for example, when clearly marked fan merchandise from a well-known source is sent to end customers as individual packages from China—the more extensive your measures may and must be; However, no in-depth technical examination is required in borderline cases. Fourthly, there is no threat to the business model: Measures must remain proportionate and must not undermine the economic viability of your logistics. These four core principles form the legally secure framework for practical compliance design.
Organizational requirements increase particularly in cases where—as in the Düsseldorf procedure—the combination of address provision, returns hub, and DDP-like advance payment of duties reduces the risk of detection by customs. The Senate considers it reasonable for you to require senders to register electronically in advance, to research them using simple means, and to block suspicious senders. Feeds from clients to senders, a lean whitelist/blacklist logic, and clearly defined redirection and quarantine paths for high-risk senders are typical building blocks that you can use to efficiently translate information into operational decisions—without disrupting ongoing operations. Where relevant sender names are already visible on the public network, predominantly advertising marked fan merchandise, the threshold of public knowledge is regularly exceeded; In such cases, you can be expected to prevent participation in the delivery or to redirect the shipments to your warehouse in advance in order to carry out a targeted visual inspection based on contractual permissions.
The Higher Regional Court, as well as the Federal Court of Justice, has long emphasized that this arrangement does not lead to a general obligation to open packages. The Federal Court of Justice has already clarified for freight forwarders that there is no general obligation to check for infringements of property rights by transported goods; only when there are concrete indications must reasonable measures be taken to clarify the suspicion and end participation in an objectively illegal act. This line of reasoning continues to apply today – and it also informs the assessment of reasonableness in fulfillment and returns backbones.
Organize instead of general suspicion: A practical package of measures
An integrated approach combining governance, contracts, and operations has proven effective in practice: At the governance level, you define a clear risk profile for your services—address/returns service, consolidation, redelivery, fulfillment—and establish responsibilities. This includes a central reporting office with short response times, clear preservation of evidence (label and shipment data, photos of conspicuous returns), and complete documentation in case of legal disputes. In terms of contracts, you oblige clients to provide the sender's details in advance, secure blocking and termination rights in the event of repetition, as well as appropriate cost regulations for quarantine and inspection measures, and allow targeted visual inspections in the event of evidence. Finally, you set up a lean inspection pipeline: sender screening against whitelists/blacklists, triggers for narrowly defined random samples (e.g., repeated identical brand returns from the same sender cluster), and clear redirection logic to quarantine areas, accompanied by training on typical high-risk goods such as fan merchandise. This allows you to create a robust "notice and action" system with effective "stay down" elements – and meet precisely those requirements that case law describes as reasonable.
Why the ruling is important – and where the limits remain
The Düsseldorf ruling makes two things clear: On the one hand, for injunctive relief claims, it is sufficient that a logistics service provider enables or facilitates infringing behavior by third parties and, despite concrete indications, does nothing to prevent repetitions. Second, proactive full checks remain inadmissible; rather, organizational, contractual, and targeted operational measures are required that are tailored to the risk exposure of the specific business model. Those who demonstrably implement this significantly reduce their liability risk without stifling the flow of goods. At the same time, case law clearly marks the limits of what is reasonable: there is no general suspicion against logistics companies and no obligation to carry out comprehensive authenticity checks. The decisive factor is a risk-adequate response to indications and obvious cases.
Conclusion
For warehouse operators, fulfillment service providers, and freight forwarders, there is therefore a clear guideline: no unwarranted total surveillance – yes to effective, documented prevention when there are indications. In situations with a recognizable increased risk – such as individual packages from third countries containing marked fan merchandise – the requirements for advance notifications from senders, research, and blocking logic increase. Those who set up governance, contracts, and operations in line with the guidelines described above maintain the performance of their business model while minimizing the risk of disruption. The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf provides precise, practical guidelines for this, which fit seamlessly into the line taken by the highest courts.
This article provides an overview for practical purposes. For your specific setup, we recommend a customized review of your contracts, processes, and IT interfaces.
The statements represent initial information that was current for the law applicable in Germany at the time of initial publication. The legal situation may have changed since then. Furthermore, the information provided cannot replace individual advice on a specific matter. Please contact us for this purpose.