Can the landlord of a property be sued for trademark infringement by his tenant?

A tenant uses the name and logo of a well-known brand for its hospitality business, which constitutes a clear trademark infringement . Can the owner-landlord of the property also be sued for this? Yes, a recent ruling confirms that the landlord can also get a cease-and-desist order because he provides the means that make the infringement possible.

The facts: a brasserie with a famous whiskey name

The case revolved around the world-famous whisky brand Ballantine's. The owner of this brand, Allied Domecq Spirits & Wine Limited (ADSW), noticed that a brasserie in Ekeren was using the name "Brasserie Ballantines." This name appeared not only on the façade, but also on social media, websites and banners, often in a font that closely resembled the whisky brand's logo.

The operation of the brasserie had recently been transferred to a new company, KMT BV. The owner of the premises, the company Van Calster NV, leased the location to KMT. ADSW summoned both the operator and the landlord to cease the infringement.

The defense relied on an old license agreement from 1997, concluded between an individual and the then Belgian distributor of the trademark. On this basis, they believed they were entitled to use the name.

Enterprise court decision

On 5 June 2025, the president of the Dutch-speaking enpterprise court in Brussels ruled in favor of the trademark owner. The court's reasoning was clear and followed several steps:

1. The license agreement is not opposable: The president noted that the 1997 agreement relied upon was between parties none of whom were involved in the current dispute. The current trademark owner (ADSW, a British company) was not a party to that agreement, nor was the current operator or landlord. The fact that there may have been a connection between the British trademark holder and the then Belgian distributor, for example through common directors, does not change the fact that they are two separate legal entities. Thus, the agreement could not confer any rights on the operator.
2. Trademark infringement is established: Since the operator had no valid reason or permission to use the name "Ballantines," there was an infringement of ADSW's Benelux and Union trademarks. The court confirmed that the use of the name was likely to cause confusion and took unfair advantage of the reputation of the well-known mark.
3. A pan-European injunction: Because the infringement involved a Union trademark, the court imposed a prohibitory injunction valid throughout the European Union. This is a powerful tool that allows trademark owners to act across borders.
4. Landlord also gets an injunction: Most notable in this case is that the court also imposed a prohibitory injunction on Van Calster NV, the owner-landlord of the property. The court ruled that the landlord "made its property and resources available to infringe on the intellectual property rights invoked."

The court did rule that there was no bad faith because the infringers could reasonably believe that their defense based on the old agreement had a chance of success.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This statement is interesting for the following reasons:

First, the principle of relativity of contracts. In principle, a contract binds only the parties who signed it. Third parties generally cannot derive any rights or obligations from it. The defense went wrong here by relying on an agreement to which neither the plaintiff (the current trademark owner) nor themselves were parties. The clear separation between legal entities, even within the same group, is crucial here.

Second, and of greater practical importance, is the affirmation of intermediaries' liability . Among others, Articles XVII.14, §4 and XI.334, §1 of the Code of Economic Law, allow holders of intellectual rights to seek injunctions against intermediaries whose services are used to commit infringement. Although the landlord does not himself commit the infringement, he facilitates it by making the property available. This judgment is a clear application of these legal provisions to the rental of real estate.

Finally, the ruling confirms the strength of the Union trademark. Its proprietor can obtain from a competent court in one member state an injunction enforceable throughout the EU, making enforcement significantly more efficient.

What this specifically means

• For the trademark holder: This ruling is supportive. You can take action not only against the direct infringer, but also against the party providing the infrastructure, such as the landlord. This creates additional leverage to end the infringement, especially if the tenant would not cooperate.
• For the tenant/operator: Be extremely careful about using names that even resemble existing trademarks. A vague reference to an old contract is totally inadequate. A thorough check of the availability of a trade name is essential before investing in branding and name recognition. Even a minor modification (such as "Ballantyn," which was also banned) is not sufficient.
• For the owner-landlord: You are not a passive bystander. If you know or should know that your tenant is infringing on intellectual property rights, you run the risk of being dragged down with them. You may face a prohibiory injunction and, in case of non-compliance, penalty payments. Therefore, it is advisable to include clauses in your leases that prohibit the tenant from committing infringements and give you, as the landlord, the right to act if this does happen.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

What if, as a landlord, I did not know about the trademark infringement?
A prohibitory injunction is aimed at stopping an unlawful condition for the future. The good or bad faith of the landlord plays less of a role here than in a claim for damages. Once you are notified of the violation, you are no longer acting in good faith and are expected to take action.

Can a landlord also be financially liable for damages?
This judgment concerned a prohibitory injunction claim, not a damages claim. To recover damages from the landlord, the trademark owner would have to prove fault, damages and a causal link, which is more complex. However, a prohibitory injunction is a much more direct and effective remedy.

Is a change of name after a formal notice sufficient?
Not necessary. In this case, the brasserie had already "re-branded" to "Brasserie B-Times." Nevertheless, the judge ruled that the risk of recurrence was not excluded and a prohibitory injunction remained necessary. This shows that a mere promise or initial adjustment is not always enough to avoid legal proceedings.

Conclusion

The ruling in the "Ballantine's" case is an important reminder that intellectual property rights are robustly enforced in Belgium. It emphasizes that not only the direct perpetrator, but also facilitating parties such as a landlord, can be required to cooperate in stopping an infringement. It is therefore crucial for landlords of commercial properties to be vigilant and contractually build in the necessary safeguards.