The ECJ and the wide cir­cle of quasi-manufacturers

With the judgment of the ECJ of 7 July 2022, the term “manu­fac­tu­rer” in the Pro­duct Lia­bi­li­ty Direc­ti­ve has been refi­ned, lea­ding to a lar­ger cir­cle of lia­bi­li­ty sub­jects in the cour­se set by the ECJ to pro­tect con­su­mers. Accor­ding to the revi­sed defi­ni­ti­on, a com­pa­ny can alre­a­dy be lia­ble as a quasi-manufacturer if it mere­ly affi­xes its name or trade­mark to a pro­duct or has per­mit­ted the affi­xing of its name or trade­mark wit­hout clai­ming sepa­ra­te­ly to be the manu­fac­tu­rer. Thus, mere­ly affi­xing or appro­ving the affi­xing of a name or other iden­ti­fy­ing mark to a pro­duct can trig­ger strict pro­duct lia­bi­li­ty, even in cases whe­re the actu­al manu­fac­tu­rer has also been affixed.

In the pro­cee­dings, the Fin­nish Supre­me Court refer­red to the ECJ for a preli­mi­na­ry ruling the ques­ti­on of the ext­ent to which brand mar­kings on a pro­duct can give rise to manu­fac­tu­rer lia­bi­li­ty in the terms of the Pro­duct Lia­bi­li­ty Direc­ti­ve. The start­ing point was a cof­fee machi­ne of the brand Kon­in­kli­jke Phil­ips. The inju­red con­su­mer clai­med dama­ges from Kon­in­kli­jke Phil­ips. Howe­ver, the cof­fee machi­ne was actual­ly manu­fac­tu­red by the com­pa­ny Sae­co. In addi­ti­on to the com­pa­ny mark of Sae­co, the­re was also that of Kon­in­kli­jke Phil­ips on the finis­hed product.

The Pro­duct Lia­bi­li­ty Direc­ti­ve, which has been trans­po­sed into natio­nal law by the Ger­man Pro­duct Lia­bi­li­ty Act, pro­vi­des for two vari­ants that qua­li­fy a com­pa­ny as a manu­fac­tu­rer in the terms of the Act: First­ly, the term “manu­fac­tu­rer” in Artic­le 3(1), Alter­na­ti­ve 1 of the Pro­duct Lia­bi­li­ty Direc­ti­ve covers the com­pa­ny that actual­ly manu­fac­tures the end pro­duct, a basic mate­ri­al or a par­ti­al pro­duct. Second­ly, Artic­le 3(1), Alter­na­ti­ve  2 of the Pro­duct Lia­bi­li­ty Direc­ti­ve also encom­pas­ses the so-called “quasi-manufacturer”, who mere­ly claims to be the manu­fac­tu­rer by affi­xing its name, trade­mark or other distinc­ti­ve mark to the pro­duct, ther­eby indi­ca­ting respon­si­bi­li­ty. It is suf­fi­ci­ent for the com­pa­ny to cla­im to be the manu­fac­tu­rer by affi­xing its label, giving the con­su­mer the impres­si­on that it was invol­ved in the manu­fac­tu­ring pro­cess. In fact, howe­ver, this need not be the case. By using the claims on the pro­duct, the com­pa­ny is also using its name reco­gni­ti­on to make it more attrac­ti­ve to con­su­mers. Howe­ver, it also fol­lows that the com­pa­ny must be lia­ble for the pro­duct. Up to now, quasi-manufacturer sta­tus was denied if the actu­al manu­fac­tu­rer was cle­ar­ly iden­ti­fied and reco­g­nisable, e.g. through the wor­ding “pro­du­ced by”.

In the con­text of trade­mark licen­sing, this could mean that in the future that the licen­sor is always to be regard­ed as a quasi-manufacturer, sin­ce it is allo­wing its name to be affi­xed. At the same time, the ruling rai­ses the ques­ti­on of whe­ther all eco­no­mic ope­ra­tors who are requi­red by rele­vant EU law to affix a label on the pro­duct are now con­side­red quasi-manufacturers if their role as eco­no­mic ope­ra­tor is not suf­fi­ci­ent­ly desi­gna­ted on the pro­duct. This could be the case, for exam­p­le, with eco­no­mic ope­ra­tors such as an aut­ho­ri­sed repre­sen­ta­ti­ve or ful­fill­ment ser­vice pro­vi­der, who are obli­ged to pro­vi­de their name and address for the tracea­bi­li­ty of the pro­duct, due to the Con­su­mer Pro­duct Safe­ty and Mar­ket Sur­veil­lan­ce Regu­la­ti­on. This also appli­es in the case of group rela­ti­ons bet­ween a parent com­pa­ny and sub­si­dia­ry, so that the parent com­pa­ny, as the hol­der of the trade­mark rights, must regu­lar­ly expect a cla­im as a quasi-manufacturer.

If seve­ral com­pa­nies cla­im to be the manu­fac­tu­rer, the con­su­mer can deci­de which com­pa­ny to hold respon­si­ble as the manu­fac­tu­rer in pro­duct lia­bi­li­ty law. The con­su­mer can then demand full com­pen­sa­ti­on from that com­pa­ny on the basis of the joint and seve­ral lia­bi­li­ty in Artic­le 6 of the Pro­duct Lia­bi­li­ty Direc­ti­ve. It is not reasonable to expect the con­su­mer to deter­mi­ne the actu­al manu­fac­tu­rer. The term “manu­fac­tu­rer” should the­r­e­fo­re be con­side­red as broad­ly as pos­si­ble in order to pro­tect consumers. 


This ruling fur­ther con­so­li­da­tes the alre­a­dy strong cour­se set by the ECJ to pro­tect con­su­mers and will have con­sidera­ble con­se­quen­ces in prac­ti­ce, as it affects num­e­rous busi­ness models and eco­no­mic actors. Even an expli­cit dif­fe­ren­tia­ti­on based on the pro­duct, accor­ding to which it is clear which com­pa­ny actual­ly manu­fac­tu­red the pro­duct, leads to the assump­ti­on of quasi-manufactor sta­tus. In accordance with the ruling, any com­pa­ny that has affi­xed its trade­mark to a pro­duct or pack­a­ging can be held lia­ble under pro­duct lia­bi­li­ty law. The ECJ’s ruling is bin­ding for the mem­ber sta­tes and courts, so com­pa­nies are advi­sed to recon­sider and adapt their busi­ness models and to crea­te the best pos­si­ble rele­vant lia­bi­li­ty pro­vi­si­ons in their inter­nal con­trac­tu­al relationships.


Stay up-to-date

We use your email address exclusively for sending our newsletter. You have the right to revoke your consent at any time with effect for the future. For further information, please refer to our privacy policy.