The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has delivered a significant ruling in the case of Ford Italia SpA v ZP and Stracciari SpA, clarifying the scope of 'producer' liability under the Product Liability Directive (PLD). The Court determined that a supplier can be considered a 'producer' if their name or a distinctive element is the same as that of the manufacturer, even if they did not physically label the product. This decision has far-reaching implications for suppliers and distributors within the EU, potentially increasing their liability for defective products.

Background

On 27 December 2001, ZP was involved in a road traffic accident in which the airbag of a Ford vehicle failed to deploy. The vehicle was manufactured by Ford WAG in Germany and supplied by Ford Italia SpA to Stracciari SpA, an Italian dealer from which ZP purchased the car. ZP subsequently brought an action against Stracciari and Ford Italia, seeking compensation for the damages suffered due to the defective airbag. 

Ford Italia contended that it should not be held liable for the defect as it did not manufacture the vehicle. The case eventually reached the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation which sought clarification from the CJEU on the interpretation of the term "producer" under the PLD. Specifically, the court questioned whether a supplier could be considered a "producer" if their name or trademark was similar to that of the actual producer, even if they had not physically placed their name on the product.

Decision

Article 3(1) of the PLD defines a 'producer' as including "...any person who, by putting their name, trademark, or other distinguishing feature on the product, presents themselves as its producer". The Court examined whether this definition extends to a supplier whose name or a distinctive element thereof is the same as that of the manufacturer and the trademark on the product, even if the supplier did not physically label the product.

The CJEU ruled that the concept of a "person who presents themselves as its producer" is not limited to those who physically place their name, trademark, or distinguishing feature on the product; indeed, it can also include suppliers whose names or trademarks are similar to those of the actual producers. In this case, the Court noted that Ford Italia, despite not manufacturing the vehicle, could be considered a 'producer' if it presented itself as such by using the 'Ford' trademark, which is a distinctive element of its name and that of the manufacturer. 

The Court emphasised that the similarity between the supplier's name and the manufacturer's name can create an impression of responsibility for the product's quality, thereby giving consumers confidence comparable to that which they would have if the product had been sold directly by the manufacturer. The decisive factor is the impression created among consumers that the supplier is involved in the production process or assumes responsibility for the product's quality.

Our thoughts

This ruling underscores the importance of ensuring that consumers are adequately protected and that liability cannot be easily evaded by suppliers whose names or trademarks resemble those of the actual producers.

The decision highlights the CJEU's commitment to consumer protection and the broad interpretation of the PLD to achieve this goal. It also serves as a reminder that suppliers cannot rely solely on the absence of their physical name on a product to avoid liability. The impression created among consumers is a critical factor in determining liability.