Estée Lauder Suit Against Walmart Renews Scrutiny Of Counterfeits Sold Online

Milton Springut, partner in Herrick's Intellectual Property and Technology Group, was quoted in Citeline discussing the legal and practical realities of online marketplace counterfeit enforcement, including the importance of knowledge and reasonable steps in evaluating potential liability, and why platform incentives can limit aggressive anti-counterfeiting efforts.

The article noted that "while counterfeiters are skilled in exploiting the weaknesses of major beauty retail sales platforms like Walmart Marketplace and Amazon Marketplace, the platforms could be more proactive in blocking bad players."

"They could be doing a lot more if they wanted to, but it goes against their business model," said Milton.

Milton, who represented Gucci America, Inc. in a 2002 trademark infringement lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corporation involving the alleged sale of Gucci-branded jewelry without authorization, spoke in light of The Estée Lauder Companies' ("Estée Lauder") recently filed lawsuit against Walmart Inc. for allegedly "knowingly" allowing for the sale of counterfeit products on its website that infringe upon branded trademarks for six of its major brands, including Estée Lauder, Clinique and Aveda.

The article highlighted that Walmart introduced "enhanced vetting for certain sellers, especially those selling health, beauty and personal care products. Key elements included requiring invoices from sellers showing sourcing from a brand owner or manufacturer, letters of authorization from brands and additional seller verification."

Nonetheless, Milton is skeptical of big platforms' efforts in truly fighting counterfeits. "They do just enough to look like they are interested" in cracking down on the problem, rather than placing "real resources" behind efforts to review products, he said.

The article said that "Milton's stance is likely supported by UK advocacy organization Which?, which revealed in a report in July 2025 that two-thirds of cosmetic products it examined in a "snapshot" of sampling of items sold on four popular commerce platforms - including Amazon - are "likely" counterfeit."

The article explained that "Estée Lauder is trying to demonstrate that Walmart wasn't simply offering a platform for sales."

Estée Lauder alleged in their complaint that through its partnership with sellers, "including those who sold the accused products, defendants provide a level of involvement, support, promotion, advertising, warehousing, fulfillment, returns and pricing that situates Defendants as the seller of the accused products, and the primary beneficiary of the infringement."

Milton says that in discovery the role of Walmart's involvement should be revealed.

"If you can show that in essence, the parties have a partnership, or an apparent partnership... there's a basis to hold them liable for vicarious infringement," he added.

If so, Estée Lauder would hope to get an injunction against Walmart from further infringement, he said. "And if the situation occurs again, that they infringe the mark, or marks that are involved again, they could conceivably be held in contempt of the injunction."

Read the full article in Citeline here. Access may require a subscription.