TIFFANY V.

EBAY
Group 23
Pulak (129272003) Nitesh (129278026) Anisha (129272005)

Introduction
Ebay has blossomed into the worlds largest marketplace

making it vulnerable to counterfeits exploiting without risk Nearly half of reported online fraud takes place in the form of Internet Estimated 29% of online auction fraud happens on eBay eBay accounts for approximately 15% of known fraud on the Internet Tiffany & Co wrote to eBay in 2003 in an attempt to stop the selling of counterfeit jewellery on ebay After many exchanges, Tiffany remained unconvinced with eBays attempts to curb the counterfeiting problem filed suit in 2004 : eBay was committing trademark infringement - facilitating sale of counterfeit Tiffany jewellery

Trademark Law
prevents unfair competition by protecting the use of a

symbol, word, logo, slogan, design, domain name

protects consumers by discouraging other businesses

from using a name or logo that is similar to an existing trademark

Inwood Test
Laid out by the Supreme Court in 1982

A third party can be held contributory liable for the

infringement of another : (a) if it intentionally induces another to infringe a trademark or (b) if it continues to supply its product to one whom it knows or has reason to know is engaging in trademark infringement Contributory trademark infringement is a form of indirect infringement

Case Facts
eBay is a global online marketplace

Tiffany is a seller of luxury goods such as jewellary and

watches eBay does exercise a degree of control over its online marketplace with the help of its User Agreement & VeRO program Tiffany has sued counterfeiters, including sellers on eBay In May 2003, Tiffany wrote to eBay demanding that it remove all listings for counterfeit Tiffany merchandise and take action to deter sale of counterfeits

 eBay suggested that Tiffany use the VeRO Program to

report counterfeit auctions Sale of counterfeit items continued despite Tiffanys use of eBays VeRO Program, and 73% of Tiffany goods sold on eBay were in fact counterfeit Although Tiffany routinely requested that eBay suspend the seller account associated with a reported listing, eBay typically declined to do so Convinced the eBay was not fulfilling its legal obligations to prevent the sale of counterfeit items through its website, Tiffany filed suit alleging, among other things, that eBay was guilty of contributory trademark infringement

The Result
Court concluded that the burden of policing the Tiffany mark

appropriately rests with Tiffany Although eBay possessed generalized knowledge of infringement, it was not wilfully blind, and it took reasonable steps to correct any (alleged) infringement Court found that Tiffanys buying programs were flawed such that their evidentiary value was minimal Tiffanys letters to eBay failed to identify specific infringers Its takedown requests represented good-faith belief in the identified listings infringement rather than evidence of actual infringement

The court found that eBay responded properly to the information that it received from Tiffany and therefore was not liable for contributory trademark infringement

Analysis
The Trademark law is ultimately about protecting consumers

and eliminating consumer confusion Consumers not only received counterfeit Tiffany items, but that many of them informed eBay of this fact The court admonished Tiffany for not devoting sufficient resources to policing eBays website Even with additional resources, Tiffany would be unable to verify every auction There were steps that only eBay could take that would lessen the amount of counterfeiting Effectively discharging eBay of any liability due to its own nonfeasance Declines to discuss the facts of the case from a policy perspective Therefore the case does not help in preventing consumer confusion

Thank You