This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2026 WIPO IP Judges Forum.
Session 7: Online platforms and intermediary liability for IP infringement
National Civil Court of Appeals of Argentina, Chamber M [2022]: Iglesia Mesiánica Mundial Sekai Kyusei Kyo en la Argentina v. Mercado Libre S.A. and Others, Case No. 64627/2007
Date of judgment: March 28, 2022
Issuing authority: National Civil Court of Appeals, Chamber M
Level of the issuing authority: Appellate Instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Civil)
Subject matter: Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights)
Plaintiff/Appellant: Iglesia Mesiánica Mundial Sekai Kyusei Kyo en la Argentina
Defendant/Respondent: Mercado Libre S.A.; Luis Ernesto Ferrari; Mónica Graciela Rodríguez
Keywords: Copyright infringement, Online marketplace, Intermediary liability, Neutral intermediary, Active role, Actual knowledge, General monitoring, Safe harbour
Basic facts: Iglesia Mesiánica Mundial Sekai Kyusei Kyo en la Argentina (IMM) alleged that Luis Ernesto Ferrari’s book and CD, Revelación de los Misterios, plagiarised IMM’s work, Cimientos del Paraíso. The plagarized work was offered on the online platform Mercado Libre by Mónica Graciela Rodríguez, trading as “MYM Distribuidora.” The Court of First Instance found Ferrari liable for plagiarism, prohibited him from further sale or reproduction of the materials, and awarded IMM ARS 20,000 plus interest. The Court dismissed the claims against Mercado Libre and Rodríguez. IMM appealed; Mercado Libre appealed only on costs.
A precautionary measure ordered Ferrari to refrain from selling copies by any means. Mercado Libre confirmed its compliance when notified but stated that the listing had already expired and was inactive.
Held: The Chamber unanimously affirmed the judgment, including Ferrari’s liability, the damages award, dismissal of the claims against Mercado Libre and Rodríguez, and the allocation of costs.
Relevant holdings in relation to online platform and intermediary liability: Argentina had no specific statutory regime governing civil liability of e-commerce platforms. As IMM had neither a contractual nor a consumer relationship with Mercado Libre, the Chamber applied general rules of non-contractual, fault-based civil liability rather than the Consumer Protection Law.
Referring to Kosten v. Mercado Libre (2018), EU Directive 2000/31/EC, L’Oréal v. eBay (2011), Tiffany v. eBay (2010), and Argentine Supreme Court decisions in Rodríguez, María Belén v. Google and Gimbutas, Carolina V. v. Google (2017), the Chamber identified three situations:
1. A marketplace operator is not liable where it has no active role, possessing or being privy to knowledge of, or control over stored information, and acts merely as a channel for transactions.
2. A neutral operator may incur fault-based liability if it has knowledge of, or if circumstances arise from which a diligent operator should identify an unlawful offer and then fails to act promptly.
3. No exemption applies where the operator plays an active role enabling knowledge or control. Where the dispute arises from a consumer relationship between the parties, liability might also be considered under Article 40 of the Consumer Protection Law.
Any potential intermediary liability is premised upon the intermediary’s own conduct, not strict liability or automatic liability for the user’s infringement. Liability requires the platform’s independent negligent conduct to contribute causally to the harm. The assessment is case-specific and depends on the degree of control, actual knowledge, and whether the platform’s functions are passive and automated, such as hosting, search or links, or amount to active participation in presenting or promoting unlawful information.
Mercado Libre merely hosted the third-party offer. It was not required to monitor content generally to identify infringements; in the circumstances, the right holder had to identify and report the alleged infringement. Mercado Libre had no actual knowledge, nor a reasonable opportunity to identify the plagiarism before notice. The listing’s short duration, 16 views, absence of sales and the fact that judicial confirmation of plagiarism required approximately 15 years supported that conclusion.
The Chamber found that the platform’s conduct fell within a safe harbour approach for neutral Internet intermediaries. This was not an autonomous statutory immunity under Argentine law, but a criterion for applying general civil liability rules. The result would be the same under an actual knowledge analysis: Mercado Libre could not reasonably have identified the unlawfulness before the complaint or notice of the precautionary measure, and it confirmed its compliance upon notification.
Relevant legislation: Argentina Copyright Law No. 11,723 (AR223); Argentina Article 1,109 of the former Civil Code; Articles 1,721, 1,724, 1,725 and 1,749 of the Civil and Commercial Code (AR190).