Yes, the mall owners are responsible. The court said they couldn't just play dumb. When police are raiding your property and hauling away truckloads of fake goods, you have a pretty good idea what's going on. This is called 'constructive knowledge.' The owners were 'willfully blind' because they chose to look the other way instead of doing something simple, like walking around the mall to see who was selling obviously fake sunglasses for ridiculously low prices. Because they knew what was happening and continued to provide space for the illegal activity, they share in the blame.

Yes, the mall owners and managers should have known their renters were selling fake Luxottica sunglasses because:

1) The police raided the mall three times and arrested renters for selling fakes. 
2) Luxottica sent letters warning them and pointing out specific booths selling fakes.
3) The owners and managers could have gone and looked at what the renters were selling to easily see the sunglasses were fakes based on the low prices and how they looked.

Even though they knew or should have known, the owners and managers kept helping the renters by providing space, utilities, and parking. They could have looked at the booths and kicked out the renters selling fakes, but they didn't.

The mall's contracts with renters said they could kick renters out immediately for selling fakes. By letting it continue, the mall was breaking its own contract with the owner. So the owner could have kicked the whole mall out too.

The evidence was enough to show the mall owners and managers were helping the copyright infringement on purpose, or at least looking the other way on purpose. The appeals court said the jury made the right decision.

Yes, a landlord has sufficient constructive knowledge for contributory infringement liability under these circumstances. A landlord who knows or has reason to know their tenants are engaging in trademark infringement can be held liable if they continue to provide services that facilitate the infringement. The court found that the evidence of multiple, large-scale police raids, seizures of counterfeit goods, arrests of subtenants, and specific notice letters from Luxottica was more than sufficient to give the defendants constructive knowledge of the infringing activity. The defendants' deliberate failure to conduct even a cursory investigation of the 130 booths after receiving these clear signals of wrongdoing constituted willful blindness. Unlike the defendant in Tiffany v. eBay, who managed a vast online marketplace, these landlords had the physical ability to inspect the premises and identify vendors selling obviously counterfeit goods at drastically reduced prices. Their inaction in the face of overwhelming evidence supported the jury's finding of liability.

Yes, the defendants had at least constructive knowledge of their subtenants' direct trademark infringement because they were notified by Luxottica, witnessed law enforcement raids, and had the ability to inspect the booths for counterfeit goods. Despite this knowledge, they continued to provide services to the subtenants, enabling the sale of counterfeit goods. 

The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The raids, arrests, and seizures of counterfeit goods, along with Luxottica's letters and the defendants' ability to visually inspect the booths, all support a finding that the defendants had at least constructive knowledge of specific instances of direct infringement by their subtenants. 

The defendants had a contractual right to inspect the booths and terminate leases of infringing subtenants. AMM's subleases stated that the sale of counterfeit goods would constitute an immediate breach allowing termination. Yes Assets' lease with AMM required AMM's compliance with all laws. By enabling subtenants' infringement, AMM was violating the Lanham Act and therefore in breach of its own lease, giving Yes Assets the right to evict AMM.

The defendants argue the court should have applied a stricter knowledge standard from Tiffany v. eBay, which held that generalized knowledge of infringement was insufficient and that eBay needed specific knowledge of which vendor listings were infringing. However, unlike in Tiffany where eBay had no way to inspect goods, the defendants here could have easily inspected the booths to determine which subtenants were selling counterfeit Luxottica products based on the pricing and appearance of the glasses.

In sum, the evidence was sufficient to show the defendants had constructive knowledge of, or were willfully blind to, specific acts of direct infringement by subtenants. The district court properly denied the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Luxottica Group, S.p.A. v. Airport Mini Mall, LLC

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot