Posted on March 10, 2014<\/p>\n
Coach v. Sapatis (D.N.H. Jan. 31, 2014)<\/a><\/p>\n Much of modern contributory liability doctrine is founded on the flea market cases, where the courts first extended Inwood\u2019s<\/i> test for contributory trademark infringement outside the \u201csupplies a product\u201d context to flea market owners and operators whose vendors sold counterfeits of the plaintiff\u2019s products. These cases historically distinguish two types of flea market landlords: those who own the flea market itself, leasing booth space to individual vendors, and those who merely own the property on which the flea market is located. Courts have declined to extend liability to the latter category of defendants because they do not exercise direct control over the infringing sales. Flea market owners who are also \u201coperators,\u201d by contrast, are subject to contributory claims because they can terminate their relationship with their vendors upon notice of infringing activity.<\/p>\n