Compensation Standards for Trademark Infringement in Europe: How to Quantify Brand Damage Caused by Counterfeits

Trademark infringement has become an increasingly serious issue in Europe, especially when it comes to the intangible losses brands suffer due to counterfeits. The damage caused by counterfeit products is often difficult to quantify. However, courts across Europe have gradually developed a relatively comprehensive system for calculating compensation in trademark infringement cases. This article takes an in-depth look at how European courts assess brand damage caused by counterfeits and reveals the key factors considered in judicial practice through typical case analyses.

I. Legal Framework for Trademark Infringement Compensation in Europe

The EU Trademark Directive (2015/2436) and the EU Trademark Regulation (EU 2017/1001) provide a unified foundation for calculating compensation within member states, though implementation is ultimately determined by the national courts. Compensation calculations generally follow three main approaches:

Actual Loss Method: Compensating for the rights holder’s direct economic losses, including lost profits and damage to goodwill.
Infringer’s Profit Method: Awarding the full profits gained by the infringer through the infringing activity.
Reasonable Royalty Method: Estimating the fee the infringer would have paid for a legitimate license under normal market conditions.

When it comes to intangible damages such as brand value loss, European courts place particular emphasis on the concept of moral prejudice, which covers harm to brand reputation, dilution of brand distinctiveness, and erosion of consumer trust — losses that are difficult to quantify directly.

II. Key Factors in Calculating Brand Damage

When assessing brand damage caused by counterfeit products, European courts typically consider the following critical factors:

Extent of Brand Value Deterioration
- The degree of inferiority in counterfeit product quality (the larger the quality gap, the greater the damage)
- Sales channels for the counterfeit goods (e.g., whether they appear in discount shops or other inappropriate venues)
- Media coverage and public perception impact
Case Reference: In LVMH v. eBay (2008), the French court found that the presence of large quantities of counterfeit luxury watches on the platform severely damaged the brand’s premium image, awarding €38.6 million in compensation, partially based on a brand value assessment report.
Likelihood of Market Confusion
- Degree of similarity between counterfeit and genuine products
- The target consumer group’s ability to distinguish between the two
- Actual evidence of confusion (e.g., consumer complaints)
Brand Repair Costs
- Advertising expenses required to correct consumer misconceptions
- Investment in enhanced anti-counterfeiting measures
- Market research and brand tracking expenses
Case Reference: In Rolex v. Unidentified Seller (2019, Germany), the court included brand repair advertising costs (around 3% of legitimate product sales revenue) as part of the compensation.
Specificity of Brand Positioning
- The "exclusivity value" loss for luxury brands
- The "trustworthiness" damage for mass-market brands
- The weakening of "first-mover advantage" for innovative brands

III. Typical Case Analyses

Chanel v. Jewelry Retailer (2021, EU Court) Chanel sued a Spanish jewelry retailer for selling counterfeit jewelry priced at just one-tenth of the original, using highly similar logos. The court ruled:
- Actual Loss: Calculated by multiplying the number of counterfeit items by the profit margin on genuine products.
- Brand Damage: An additional 30% “goodwill damage premium” was added.
- Total Compensation: €2.2 million.
Key Takeaway: Even with significant price differences, counterfeits can cause a “downward drag” effect on high-end brand positioning.
Adidas v. Fast Fashion Brand (2020, Netherlands) A fast fashion brand used a logo similar to Adidas' three stripes. The court applied a “brand dilution coefficient”:
- Calculated Adidas’ average annual investment in brand building over five years (approx. €120 million)
- Determined about 0.5% brand dilution caused by the infringement
- Brand damage compensation: €600,000.
Porsche Design v. Mobile Accessories Manufacturer (2018, Austria) A mobile phone case maker used the Porsche Design logo. The court innovatively applied a “brand association damage” method:
- Assessed Porsche Design’s brand value linked to its core automotive business
- Recognized that low-quality accessories harmed its reputation for engineering excellence
- Awarded damages at 200% of infringing sales revenue (above the usual 100–150%).

IV. Evolving Quantification Methods

In recent years, European courts have increasingly accepted professional brand valuation methodologies, including:

Brand Valuation Models Adoption of professional valuation methods like Interbrand or BrandZ reports, combining financial data and consumer research.
Econometric Models Using comparative market analysis and regression analysis to isolate the specific impact of infringement on brand value.
Consumer Survey Evidence Surveys measuring consumer confusion rates, brand association tests, and purchase intention comparisons.

Case Reference: In Red Bull v. Energy Drink Counterfeiter (2022, UK), the court accepted a consumer survey-based “brand equity damage index,” resulting in a 40% increase in the awarded compensation.

V. Prevention and Strategic Recommendations

For brand owners, European experience suggests:

Systematic Evidence Collection Regularly establish brand value benchmarks (through professional assessments) Keep detailed records of all marketing and quality control investments.
Specialized Online Monitoring Utilize AI-based image recognition to track counterfeit products. Focus on monitoring social media and e-commerce platforms.
Differentiated Enforcement Strategy Seek brand damage compensation in large-scale infringement cases. Use statutory compensation mechanisms for smaller infringers.
Scientific Damage Assessment Prepare professional brand damage reports. Engage experienced economic experts for court testimony.

Conclusion

European courts have become increasingly sophisticated in assessing brand damage from counterfeit products, evolving from symbolic compensation to the acceptance of complex brand valuation models. As the digital economy grows, new types of infringement — such as virtual goods and social media-driven counterfeits — will present additional evaluation challenges. Brand owners should thoroughly understand European judicial practices and adopt professional, evidence-based approaches to quantify intangible losses and effectively safeguard brand value.

It’s worth noting that the EU is actively promoting the development of unified intellectual property damage calculation guidelines, which are expected to further standardize brand damage assessment methods and provide rights holders with clearer expectations.

Share this page