Autocross Blogs - Chrls Iicey

Tiffany Appeals eBay Trademark RulingThe bell rang for the appeal round of the legal bout between Tiffany & Co. and eBay Inc.In a move the luxury jeweler signaled it would make, Tiffany Xmas Set it is appealing a federal court ruling last month that eBay could not be held liable for trademark infringement of Tiffany merchandise.Judge Richard Sullivan ruled that the giant online auction house does not have the legal responsibility to prevent the sale of counterfeit goods, and that Tiffany has the burden of policing its trademark."Unfortunately, the trial court incorrectly held that trademark holders and not eBay are responsible for policing the eBay site," said Tiffany general counsel Patrick Dorsey. "In our view, this approach makes no sense as a matter of law or policy. Once eBay has reason to know that a specific brand like Tiffany & Co. is being widely counterfeited and sold, eBay should be compelled to investigate and take action to protect its customers and stop the Xmas Watche conduct."However, Sullivan found that eBay could not be held liable for trademark infringement based solely on its general knowledge that counterfeit goods might be sold on the site. Tiffany filed the suit in 2004 after it found dozens of fake products bearing its name for sale on eBay.

"Tiffany's decision to carry the litigation on after the district court's decision doesn't do anything to combat counterfeiting," eBay spokeswoman Catherine England said. "The best way to stop counterfeiting is ongoing collaboration between companies, government agencies and law enforcement."EBay has been at the center of two closely watched cases involving counterfeit luxury brands this year. In June, a French court found the Web site guilty of gross misconduct for its part in the sale of counterfeit goods from brands owned by LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton. The court ordered eBay to remove all auctions involving LVMH goods and pay compensation totaling 38.9 million euros., or about $58.4 million at current tiffany jewelry. A court of appeals upheld the decision two weeks later.The U.S. case is being closely watched by brand owners and others in the intellectual property community because if it is overturned on appeal it has the potential to cause havoc to eBay's business model and open the popular Internet retailer to litigation from other labels.Luxe Brand Smackdown: Tiffany Loses to eBay In Fight Over Fake GoodsEbay's business model has been validated -- at least on one side of the Atlantic.After a victory last month in France, luxury brands and other labels sold on eBay in the U.S. were dealt a major setback Monday in their battle with online counterfeiters. A federal judge in Manhattan, ruling in a trademark lawsuit filed four years ago by Tiffany & Co., said the giant online auction house does not have the legal responsibility to prevent the sale of counterfeit goods.

In what is believed to have been the first lawsuit of its kind in the U.S., Tiffany had sought to shift the responsibility for policing a trademark from brand owner to eBay. However, Judge Richard Sullivan ruled that it is the burden of Tiffany, not eBay, to maintain and enforce its mark. EBay fulfilled its legal obligations by taking tiffany bracelets precautions to block the sale of fakes, Sullivan concluded."The rapid development of the Internet and Web sites like eBay have created new ways for sellers and buyers to connect and to expand their businesses beyond geographical limits," Sullivan wrote in his 66-page decision. "These new markets have also, however, given counterfeiters new opportunities to expand their reach."The court is not unsympathetic to Tiffany and other rights owners who have invested enormous resources in developing their brands, only to see them illicitly and efficiently exploited by others on the Internet," he continued. "Nevertheless, the law is clear: it is the trademark owner's burden to police its mark and companies like eBay cannot be held liable for trademark infringement based solely on their general knowledge that trademark infringement might be occurring on their Web site."