In a partial win for third-party seller Angel Seller LLC, a federal court in New York has refused to grant summary judgment to Fossil Group and Michael Kors, LLC on their claims that the company sold counterfeit MK-branded watches through its Amazon storefront. In a newly-issued opinion and order, the court denied both sides’ motions on the bulk of claims – finding that a jury must determine whether the watches in question were actually counterfeit and whether Angel Seller is liable for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and dilution. The court did, however, dismiss Angel Seller’s defamation counterclaim and a New York deceptive business practices claim brought by Fossil and Kors.
The Background in Brief: The long-running dispute got its start in 2020, when Michael Kors and licensee Fossil filed suit against Angel Seller LLC and its owner Eric Sternberg, alleging that the Amazon-based retailer was selling counterfeit MK watches. Fossil, which holds an exclusive license to manufacture and sell MK-branded timepieces, claimed it had purchased several “Michael Kors” watches from Angel Seller through Amazon and concluded that at least six were fake, pointing to hangtag inconsistencies and packaging errors. Fossil ultimately flagged eight total watches – six allegedly counterfeit, one suspicious, and one purchased later from Newegg, and then submitted takedown notices through Amazon’s Report a Violation tool, resulting in the suspension of Angel Seller’s Amazon storefront.
Angel Seller pushed back against the claims, denying that the products were counterfeit and arguing that Fossil’s reports to Amazon were defamatory. The company alleged that Fossil and Kors were using Amazon’s brand protection and reporting mechanisms not solely to address counterfeits, but to target unauthorized sellers in and exert pricing control in the secondary market.
In dueling motions for summary judgment, both sides sought to land wins before trial. Fossil and Kors argued that expert testimony and product discrepancies proved the watches were counterfeit, while Angel Seller countered that the watches were genuine, sourced from legitimate distribution channels, and verified by a watch authentication specialist – and therefore fell squarely within the bounds of the first sale doctrine.
An Issue for the Jury
In his decision on April 7, Judge Hector Gonzalez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York refused to side with either party on the core trademark and counterfeiting claims, finding that “the contradicting evidence and expert testimony” creates “genuine issues of material fact” that only a jury can resolve. The court pointed to a “battle of the experts,” with both sides offering conflicting assessments of the same watches, and concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate. The court also declined to dismiss Angel Seller’s affirmative defense under the first sale doctrine, stating it would only apply if the jury finds the watches were, in fact, genuine.
While most claims remain in place for trial, Judge Gonzalez granted summary judgment on two fronts. First, he dismissed Fossil and Kors’ claim under New York General Business Law § 349, finding no evidence of the “specific and substantial injury to the public interest” required to sustain a deceptive business practices claim under that statute.
Second, he dismissed Angel Seller’s counterclaim for defamation, holding that Fossil’s reports to Amazon were protected by legal, moral, and common interest privileges. Because Fossil had a contractual duty to report counterfeit concerns and a shared interest with Amazon in protecting the platform from IP violations, its reports were deemed legally justified. The court also found that Angel Seller failed to present sufficient evidence that Fossil acted with actual malice or reckless disregard – standards required to overcome privilege and sustain a defamation claim under New York law.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: The ruling is the latest to test the boundaries between counterfeit enforcement and reseller rights on major platforms like Amazon. As luxury brands ramp up use of online reporting tools and brand registry programs, resellers have increasingly pushed back – arguing that legitimate sales are being unfairly flagged under the guise of brand protection. Kors and Fossil’s case reflects that tension. While brand owners have a legitimate interest in combating counterfeits, courts are scrutinizing whether enforcement tactics are overreaching – particularly when third-party sellers claim their goods are authentic and lawfully sourced.
The case is Fossil Group, Inc. et al. v. Angel Seller LLC et al., 1:20-cv-02441 (E.D.N.Y.).
Share
