Judge sides with eBay in fake jewelry spat
Trademark at Tiffany's
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
A federal judge has sided with eBay in its long-running legal battle with jewelry giant Tiffany & Co.
In 2004, Tiffany sued eBay for trademark infringement, claiming the online auctioneer failed to prevent the sale of fake Tiffany jewelry on its site, and today, Judge Richard Sullivan of the US District Court in Manhattan ruled that eBay had behaved just fine.
Tiffany argues that eBay is obligated to actively monitor and remove listings for trademarked and copyrighted material. But eBay has always maintained it's not responsible for such listings unless it's notified by the trademark holder. In the end, Judge Sullivan decided that proactive removal isn't required by US law.
"The law demands more specific knowledge as to which items are infringing and which seller is listing those items before requiring eBay to take action," reads the 66-page ruling. "The result of the application of this legal standard is that Tiffany must bear the ultimate burden of protecting its trademark."
It was a much-needed legal win for eBay. A French judge recently sided with LVHM - maker of Louis Vuitton handbags - in a similar suit, ordering eBay for fork over $60m in damages. And this spring, a German court ordered the online auctioneer to preemptively prevent the sale of fake Rolex watches.
In a statement tossed our way, eBay said that the Tiffany suit should never have happened. "While today’s decision is a victory for consumer choice, it is a shame that so much effort has been wasted when Tiffany could have worked with eBay to more effectively fight counterfeits," the company said. "eBay will continue to lead the industry with innovative solutions to stop the sale of counterfeits.".
But don't think this is over. You can bet that Tiffany will appeal. ®
COMMENTS
What?
"eBay will continue to lead the industry with innovative solutions to stop the sale of counterfeits."
Since when was a little light key-word filtering innovative? What industry does eBay think that it is leading?
eBay should be held responsible
eBay should be made to either police their auctions or be held responsible when someone complains of infringement. eBay make billions from these illegal goods so they should be held liable.
How can eBay be expected to spot all fakes?
Ebay do remove auctions when they have it reported as being a fake, I have known friends have auctions for 2nd hand totally legit items taken down after malicious, monopolistic sellers have reported them for selling fakes, even to the point of receiving letters from solicitors - of course backed up by no evidence of actual fakery, those letters clearly got a rude and blunt reply about getting proper evidence before accusing people of criminal behavior.
The point is though that eBay do take action, often more than they should... so to accuse them of complacency is foolish at best. Ebay cannot be expected to inspect the items for sale actively, what are they supposed to do - visit people's houses? Besides that eBay wouldn't necessarily have the specialist product knowledge to spot all fakes, and can't be expected to either. The best eBay can do is to work with trademark owners and the general user base to remove listings which are reported as being fake items - something which they already do, sometimes being over zealous in the process.
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Top 10 SIEM implementer’s checklist
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
