eBAY SUED FOR TM INFRINGEMENT


Red Herring reports that American jeweller Tiffany is suing eBay for facilitating the counterfeiting of Tiffany’s goods, false advertising, and trade mark infringement of Tiffany items in violation of the Lanham Act. Tiffany conducted sample purchases of 200 goods sold as having been made by Tiffany during 2004 and claims that 75% of these goods were fakes. eBay’s complaint states that

“The eBay web site is currently, and has been, infested with many thousands of counterfeit Tiffany items, many of poor quality, which ... has directly led to the defrauding of thousands of consumers".

Tiffany is seeking an injunction against eBay preventing it from selling any items on its site that have not been made, sponsored, or approved by Tiffany and is asking the court to award Tiffany three times the profits eBay made from selling any counterfeit items, or alternatively $1 million for each counterfeit mark for each type of jewellery sold.


To the IPKat this sounds like a cross between Grokster and cases such as the one in China where the owner of physical premises on which others sell counterfeit goods have been sued for trade mark infringement. If this case was to succeed it would have a catastrophic effect on internet auction sites since it would be unrealistic to expect them to verify if the goods put up for sale by individuals were genuine.
eBAY SUED FOR TM INFRINGEMENT eBAY SUED FOR TM INFRINGEMENT Reviewed by Anonymous on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. I have been alerted to a case in the UK where the operator of a car boot sale was found to have aided and abetted the sale of pirated DVDs in the market - the best report I can find is on the ACG website http://www.a-cg.com/docs/Banks_AidAbet.pdf. As far as I can tell it's not reported.

    Eddie Powell
    Partner

    Fladgate Fielder
    Solicitors
    25 North Row
    London W1K 6DJ

    Main tel:: +44 (0) 20 7323 4747
    www.fladgate.com

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.