"for allowing the sale of fakes"
"LVMH claimed damages ~ because it said eBay's French arm had not done enough to prevent sales of counterfeit items."
Sorry, but no-one can completely prevent the sale of fakes. If eBay is taking preventative measures, then surely it would be better for the manufacturers to work with eBay to speed/tighten up the reporting process.
And from the Court's POV, perjury is a crime, and although I am sure the courts are taking measure to stop perjury, I'am also sure that is still occurs, Therefore, using the same logic that was used in this case, perhaps the courts should be charged with "allowing perjury to occur".
Seems more like branding and market domination to me, which here is Australia, might even run up against the laws regarding "restriction of trade".