Acts of torts by Amazon [Appendix 1-20]. Amazon’s claim that the use of ‘Cath Kidston’ is an Intellectual Property Infringement (trademark violation)
Amazon removed the Claimant, its competitor, from their own marketplace by abusing its superior bargaining position (Exclusionary Private Monopolisation).
Amazon.com claimed an Intellectual Property infringement against the Claimant for only one of 303 parallel-imported Cath Kidston items listed by the Claimant [Claimant Note: The item in question was purchased from Cath Kidston on 13 October 2021. It was listed as ‘parallel- imported’ Cath Kidston on Amazon.co.jp on 6 November 2021 and sold on 13 November 2021. It has been unavailable to buy since then, although the catalogue remains].
Amazon runs the brand store of Cath Kidston as a seller on Amazon.co.jp (see below).
However, it is not a problem for other sellers to sell these items. For instance, Amazon provided the ‘Buy Box’ for one-click convenience to a seller who listed the Cath Kidston brand as ‘Brand: Non-Branded’ and reprinted the item as being listed on a flea market website (see below).
However, the seller was informed by a customer in seller reviews that they were, in fact, selling their item listed on a flea market website without authorisation.
Amazon also provided the ‘Buy Box’ to a product sourcing drop shipper who was selling the same item that the Claimant was selling (at 2780 yen) at a colossal 19800 yen (see below). The ‘Buy Box’ would have been the result of the seller contributing to Amazon’s overwhelmingly huge product selection by listing over 100,000 items.
With respect to the Claimant, Amazon eliminated the parallel-imported item by asserting that the Claimant must obtain a license to sell under the brand Cath Kidston for said item (at the time she had purchased it in 2021) if she wanted Amazon to withdraw the Intellectual Property Infringement claim (trademark violation) against her. By claiming that an Intellectual Policy infringement claim would disappear from display after 180 days, Amazon continued to make defamations consisting of false statements that hurt the Claimant and damaged her reputation.
After the display disappeared, Amazon claimed that the Claimant should obtain either a license to sell from Cath Kidston or acquire some form of acceptance from Amazon which Cath Kidston themselves will accept. However, because listing a Cath Kidston item as ‘parallel-imported’ became an Intellectual Property infringement, the Claimant cannot sell the Cath Kidston items she currently has. Therefore, Amazon infringed the Claimant’s rights to run a business legitimately on its website.
Read about this in more detail: Claimant’s Brief 12 (pp.1-4, 24-25)
