The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled Thursday in favor of Amazon in its landmark trademark dispute with the German wing of the international cosmetics giant Coty. The court found that “the mere storage by Amazon, in the context of its online marketplace (‘Amazon- Marketplace’), of goods which infringe trade mark rights does not constitute an infringement by Amazon of those trade mark rights.”

Coty Germany owns a license for the EU trademark “Davidoff,” which is a perfume brand. The dispute arose when Coty Germany claimed that “two Amazon group companies infringed its rights in that mark by storing and dispatching bottles of ‘Davidoff Hot Water’ perfume offered for sale by third-party sellers on Amazon-Marketplace” without their consent. Coty Germany requested that the German courts order “the two Amazon companies concerned to desist from such storage and dispatch.”

“The Landgericht (Regional Court, Germany) dismissed the action brought by Coty,” and the appeals court affirmed that dismissal. Coty Germany appealed again this time to the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice in Germany). The Bundesgerichtshof temporarily halted its proceedings in order to ask the ECJ, “whether a company which, on behalf of a third-party seller, stores goods which infringe trade mark rights, without being aware of that infringement, itself uses that mark.”

In Thursday’s judgment, the court determined that “in order for there to be an infringement of the rights in the trade mark by the company providing the storage, that company must pursue, like the seller, the aim of offering the goods for sale or putting them on the market.” In this case, the Bundesgerichtshof has already unequivocally determined “that the two Amazon companies concerned have not themselves offered the goods for sale or put them on the market and that the third-party seller alone pursued that aim.” With that in mind, the ECJ’s ruling will almost certainly mean that the Bundesgerichtshof will also rule “that the Amazon companies have not themselves used the Davidoff mark.”

However, the ECJ also commented: “that other provisions of EU law, in particular those on e-commerce and enforcement of intellectual property rights, allow legal proceedings to be brought against an intermediary who has enabled an economic operator to use a trade mark unlawfully.” Given this statement, it may be possible that a separate suit brought under a different provision may succeed where this one has failed.