Tiffany, Inc. vs EBay, and Inc. A.V. vs Iparadigms Case Study Assignments
JayLQue
SampleCase2.pdf
Running Head: WEEK THREE CASE STUDY 1
Week three Case Studies
Case Study 1: Tiffany Inc. v Ebay Inc.
Case Study 2: A.v. vs. Iparadiagrams
Jazman Richardson
Dr. Byran
BMIS 570
Liberty University
This study source was downloaded by 100000771637443 from CourseHero.com on 04-06-2021 14:46:18 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/74892563/Week-Three-Case-Studydocx/
Th is
stu dy
re so
ur ce
w as
sh ar
ed v
ia C
ou rs
eH er
o. co
m
Running Head: WEEK THREE CASE STUDY 2
Introduction about Case Study 1
Throughout reading this case study, it was interesting to figure out what the outcome
would be since I use to be a seller on EBay. There are two parties within this study: Tiffany
Incorporated and EBay incorporated. According to the reading, Tiffany Incorporated is a high-
end jewelry chain, discovered that counterfeit Tiffany jewelry was being sold on eBay (Ferrera,
Reder, Lichtenstein, & Darrow, 2012). EBay Inc. is a multinational e-commerce corporation,
facilitating online consumer-to-consumer and business-to-consumer sales (Dan Morales, 2015).
The key reason for this lawsuit against eBay is because consumers were selling Tiffany’s product
using her trademark and selling product that was counterfeit.
Facts about the Case
Since the defendant eBay is an Internet marketplace that permits registered sellers to
sell various items to registered buyers without eBay ever taking possession of the item
(Bradley & Porter, 2000). EBay has become an effective and successful company in the
market that makes its money by charging sellers to list goods and charging a percentage of the
final sale price. EBay was able to make even more profit for their company because of the
ownership they have with Paypal. They are able to charge a percentage and small flat fee for
eBay users to process purchases (ebay inc., 2015). Since the plaintiff Tiffany a world-famous
jeweler, sells its goods exclusively through its own retail stores, catalogue, and website. It does
not sell overstock, discontinued, or discontinued merchandise. Plaintiff learned of counterfeit
Tiffany sales on eBay (Defendant) and alerted Defendant about the problem. eBay initiated a
variety of anticounterfeit sales measures, including a fraud engine, a notice-and-takedown
system so rights holders could complete a Notice of Claimed Infringement Form and request the
takedown of a particular sellers allegedly counterfeit goods, and cancellation of seller accounts
This study source was downloaded by 100000771637443 from CourseHero.com on 04-06-2021 14:46:18 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/74892563/Week-Three-Case-Studydocx/
Th is
stu dy
re so
ur ce
w as
sh ar
ed v
ia C
ou rs
eH er
o. co
m
Running Head: WEEK THREE CASE STUDY 3
of repeat offenders. Plaintiff also put a buyers’ notice on the eBay (Defendant) site informing
buyers of the potential danger in purchasing Tiffany products on the second-hand market.
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, claiming inter alia, eBay’s (Defendant) conduct constituted
direct and contributory trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising. The
district court found for eBay (Defendant) on all counts. Plaintiff appealed.
Issues
Throughout reading this case studies, one of the main legal issues against ebay was not
paying taxes for their product. One of the key questions that I wanted to know was, Does
service provider liability for contributory trademark infringement require a showing of intentional
incentive to infringe or “knows or should have known” of the direct infringement and a continued
providing of the service to the infringer? Service provider liability for contributory trademark
infringement requires a showing of intentional incentive to infringe or “knows or should have
known” of the direct infringement and a continued providing of the service to the infringer. The
district court was correct in its finding that eBay’s (Defendant) use of Tiffany’s (Plaintiff)
argument that Defendant knew or should have known of the counterfeit sales and thus directly
infringed upon its mark for failing to identify and remove the illegitimate goods fails. It would
unduly limit the resale of legitimate second-hand Tiffany goods to impose liability on Defendant
for an inability to guarantee the genuineness of all claimed Tiffany products. Next, Plaintiff
argues eBay’s conduct constitutes contributory trademark infringement, which is a more difficult
argument.
The assesses liability for contributory infringement on service providers if the provider:
(1) intentionally encourages the infringement; or (2) knows or has reason to know of
infringement and continues to supply its service to the offending party. Tiffany (Plaintiff) argues
the second factor applies to eBay (Defendant). Plaintiff argues the second factor applies to
This study source was downloaded by 100000771637443 from CourseHero.com on 04-06-2021 14:46:18 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/74892563/Week-Three-Case-Studydocx/
Th is
stu dy
re so
ur ce
w as
sh ar
ed v
ia C
ou rs
eH er
o. co
m
Running Head: WEEK THREE CASE STUDY 4
Defendant. Plaintiff does not challenge the district court’s finding that Defendant was not liable
for those sales it terminated upon receipt of notice from Plaintiff about allegedly offending
products. Tiffany (Plaintiff) does challenge the district court’s finding eBay (Defendant) had
insufficient knowledge about infringement of other nonterminated listings because its
generalized knowledge of counterfeit products on its site did not trans late into sufficient
knowledge under Inwood. It is a high burden to prove “knowledge” of contributory infringement.
Tiffany (Plaintiff) argues here that generalized knowledge and specific knowledge of particular
sellers is the same under Inwood and creates liability.
eBay (Defendant) had no such knowledge here. Tiffany (Plaintiff) argues “willful
blindness” cannot be permitted to overcome liability. If eBay (Defendant) shielded itself
deliberately from knowledge of offending sales, it could become liable under the Inwood second
prong. However, that is not the case because Defendant had only general knowledge and did
not ignore the issue. Finally, Tiffany’s (Plaintiff) dilution claims fail because eBay (Defendant)
did not use the Tiffany mark to associate it with its own products but to identify Tiffany products
on its site. [False advertising analysis is omitted from the casebook excerpt.] Affirmed as to the
trademark infringement and dilution; remand as to false advertising.
Arguments
There are several different pros and cons within the case study. One of the pros is that
Onex was able to win the legal case because they had enough information to prove that they
were engaging in manufacturing during the period that the organization did not pay use taxes.
Another pro is Onex was able to get their product successfully done. The con is that they had to
go through two different organizations in order to the product accomplished which was IBM and
TransSwitch Corporation. Another con is the organization had to source out because they did not
have the equipment which semi cause them to lose some revenue.
This study source was downloaded by 100000771637443 from CourseHero.com on 04-06-2021 14:46:18 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/74892563/Week-Three-Case-Studydocx/
Th is
stu dy
re so
ur ce
w as
sh ar
ed v
ia C
ou rs
eH er
o. co
m
Running Head: WEEK THREE CASE STUDY 5
Conclusion
Consumer advocates worried a victory for Tiffany (Plaintiff) would require online
merchants to prohibit even lawful uses of trademarks on their sites because of the fear of
liability for contributory trademark infringement. eBay’s (Defendant) existing safeguards and
rapid response to notifications of counterfeit products gave it a significant advantage in this
case, but not many online retailers are so responsive. Trademark infringement is rampant
online and rights holders must be vigilant about policing the use of their marks. This case did
not offer the hoped-for protection for trademark holders.
This study source was downloaded by 100000771637443 from CourseHero.com on 04-06-2021 14:46:18 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/74892563/Week-Three-Case-Studydocx/
Th is
stu dy
re so
ur ce
w as
sh ar
ed v
ia C
ou rs
eH er
o. co
m
Running Head: WEEK THREE CASE STUDY 6
Introduction Case Study 2
Within the case study Iconix, INC. vs. Tokuda; simply because certain proprietary
agreements were being expected seeing that integrations plus the former employees' says that
they are instructed your legal agreements would probably not be employed from them.
Consequently, this might be unreliable along with the proprietary agreements them selves, those
people says the propriety legal agreements couldn't survive employed from all of them were
being prohibited from the parole information rule. Additionally, the former employees
unsuccessful in order to reach your parts of the agreement. The program company confirmed
likely good results for the benefits of their says; additionally amongst the former employees,
seeing that a former officer on the company, to be paid them your fiduciary duty. A company
displayed persuading information of any break the rules of regarding fiduciary accountability
using the company option doctrine plus the former employees breached your comparison to its
their proprietary agreements which results in your trademark inside the revolutionary software.
Facts of Case Study 2
Throughout reading this case study, it was interesting to figure out what the outcome
would be. There are two parties within this study: Iconix Incorparated vs. Tokuda. Inconix
decides to take a lawsuit out on Tokuda because the organization felt like source-code and the
slideshow program was made while Tokuda was working for the organization. According to the
text, the organization felt like there was a breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and copy
right infringement (Ferrera, Reder, Lichtenstein, & Darrow, 2012). Throughout this case study
there were a lot of different portion to the lawsuit. Each section was detailed and informational.
This study source was downloaded by 100000771637443 from CourseHero.com on 04-06-2021 14:46:18 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/74892563/Week-Three-Case-Studydocx/
Th is
stu dy
re so
ur ce
w as
sh ar
ed v
ia C
ou rs
eH er
o. co
m
Running Head: WEEK THREE CASE STUDY 7
With a lot of the cybercrimes; emails has started to become more sensible to become an
easy target (Herath, Chen, Wang, banjara, Wilbur & Roa, 2012). Iconix Incorporated is a design
communications company that provide specialized services that successfully address clients'
messaging objectives. With the organization principle they are able to provide more safely
measures for another company. There are many type of email frauds but one of the main one is
called phishing. According to Jansson, & Von Solms(2013), Phishing is a form of email fraud
where senders impersonate legitimate businesses and organizations to try to get recipients to
divulge personal information such as passwords and account numbers .
Issue
Within this case study, there were a lot of legal concerns because it is dealing with
Tokuda copying Iconix Incorporated. According to Hutchison (2016), Copyright means that the
author has complete control over, and profited from the sale of, copies of the expressive content
of their work. Since Iconix Incorporated has a copyright that would mean anything that was
produced at their location would mean that it is theirs. Unfortunately, that is not the case here
because Tokuda decided to have his own domain for his organization. I feel as just because
someone makes another organization for his profit then I do not see an issue.
According to Chapdelaine (2013), copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted
work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work
without the permission of the copyright owner. The plaintiff made sure that there was an
agreement sign so if anything was to not go as plan then they could sue. Therefore, in this case
they were able to file a lawsuit because they had instant messages and where the defendants were
able to get the idea for their company.
This study source was downloaded by 100000771637443 from CourseHero.com on 04-06-2021 14:46:18 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/74892563/Week-Three-Case-Studydocx/
Th is
stu dy
re so
ur ce
w as
sh ar
ed v
ia C
ou rs
eH er
o. co
m
Running Head: WEEK THREE CASE STUDY 8
Arguments
There are several different pros and cons within the case study. One of the pros is that
Tokuda was able to start and organization and become successful. Building a feature that would
be beneficial for organizations to use especially with email fraud. With this case study I am
neutral because I do not see where there is a copyright fraud or anything because what I see is an
organization coming up with an ideal off of a project. One of the key consequences is that there
is evidences that the contracts there were sign were breach since the former employees did not
say anything.
Conclusion
Throughout the research, Tokuda was able to build a product right under Iconix
Incorporated without necessary having a copyright issue. The reason I say that is because that
product was not already made with Iconix. I feel like you cannot say something belongs to you if
the product was not produce with the supervision. According to the Bible, “Do not trust in
oppression And do not vainly hope in robbery; If riches increase, do not set your heart upon them
(Psalm 62:10, King James)”. I feel that this Bible verse can be used to explain a plaintiff stating
that something is their but on the other hand the defendant feels like there was nothing wrong
with what they did.
This study source was downloaded by 100000771637443 from CourseHero.com on 04-06-2021 14:46:18 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/74892563/Week-Three-Case-Studydocx/
Th is
stu dy
re so
ur ce
w as
sh ar
ed v
ia C
ou rs
eH er
o. co
m
Running Head: WEEK THREE CASE STUDY 9
References
Bradley, S. P., & Porter, K. A. (2000). eBay, inc. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 14(4), 73-97. Retrieved
from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/229669527?accountid=12085
Dan morales - CIO, eBay inc (2015). . San Francisco: Boardroom Insiders, Inc. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1695034403?accountid=12085://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1470792310?accountid=12085
eBay inc.; eBay inc. board of directors approves completion of eBay and PayPal separation.
(2015). Investment Weekly News, , 78. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?
url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1694738978?accountid=12085
Ferrera, G. R., Reder, M. E., Lichtenstein, S. D., Bird, R., & Darrow, J. J. (2012). CyberLaw:
Text and cases (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western College/West. ISBN:
9780324399721.
Redman, J. (2009). POST TIFFANY (NJ) INC. V. EBAY, INC.: ESTABLISHING A CLEAR, LEGAL
STANDARD FOR ONLINE AUCTIONS. Jurimetrics, 49(4), 467-490. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/29763022
This study source was downloaded by 100000771637443 from CourseHero.com on 04-06-2021 14:46:18 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/74892563/Week-Three-Case-Studydocx/
Th is
stu dy
re so
ur ce
w as
sh ar
ed v
ia C
ou rs
eH er
o. co
m
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
