U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled in favor of Ebay in the trademark infringement law suit brought against them by Tiffany’s. Similiar to the $61.3 million loss Ebay suffered in the case with LVMH, jewelry manufacturer Tiffanys’ did not get the same results…. thanks to trademark laws. Says the court, “it is the trademark owner’s burden to maintain and enforce its mark, the traditional understanding in U.S. trademark law. Tiffany, the court said, failed in its burden to prove its claims.” (Photo Source)

In the suit Tiffany & Co. claimed that eBay’s sale of counterfeit goods resulted in trademark dilution, false advertising and unfair competition. When the case opened last November, James Swire, a lawyer for Tiffany, said that a full 75% of 325 items that Tiffany has bought on eBay through a buying program the company started in 2004 were counterfeit.

But the ruling by Judge Richard Sullivan at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Monday puts the onus for policing its brand on Tiffany. The ruling said the company failed to prove that eBay was liable for the sale of the goods.

As in other cases, eBay argued that it is merely a host for buyers and sellers. That argument didn’t fly in France but Judge Sullivan said in his opinion that “Given Tiffany’s choice to sue eBay, rather than individual sellers, and this Court’s conclusion that eBay does not continue to supply its services to those whom it knows or has reason to know are infringing Tiffany’s trademarks, Tiffany’s claims against eBay must fail.”


Check it…


A French court ruled that Ebay was responsible for counterfeit items sold on it’s site and for selling genuine products outside of authorized channels. And lest not forget that 2 weeks prior the same French court ruled in favor of Hermes in a case they brought against eBay that involved the sales of fake handbags.


Oh, but over on this side of the water – you know, the land of opportunity – favor goes to eBay rather than to Tiffany & Co. Things that make you go hhhmmmmm.


Get ready, because I am sure this is not the last in a long line of similiar litigations against this online auction giant.

See our previous post about trademark infringment.