1
Tiffany, Inc. v. EBay, Inc.
Name
Course
Tutor
Date
2
Tiffany, Inc. v. EBay, Inc.
Trademark infringement is defined by Section 114 (1) of the Lanham Act as the
unauthorized commercial use of a service mark or a trade mark on services or goods or in
connection with services or goods in a way that is meant to deceive, create confusion about what
the source of the service or goods is (Legal Information Institute, n.d). This case study focuses
on analyzing the trademark infringement case brought against EBay, Inc. by Tiffany, Inc.
Facts
Tiffany cooperation, high-end merchandise and jewellery retailer, filed a lawsuit against
eBay cooperation, a platform that allows its users to advertise their products and services on the
internet and engage in buying and selling. Tiffany sued the defendant because the cooperation
had engaged in trademark infringement, false advertisement, and trademark dilution
(LexisNexis, n.d). The basis of this claim was that some of the eBay website users were selling
counterfeit merchandise using Tiffany's Trademark, making the buyers think that the products
they were buying were Tiffany’s.
Issues
Was eBay liable for trademark infringement for the actions of its users or customers
using their website to advertise and sell counterfeit products? Was eBay under an obligation to
ensure that the goods their customers and website users advertise and sell on their website are not
counterfeit? Is Tiffany Inc. entitled to damages from eBay for the damage or loss suffered due to
the eBay users selling counterfeit merchandise under their Trademark? Did eBay engage in false
advertising by advertising Tiffany's products at low prices to drive demand for its products in the
category of watches and jewelry?
3
Arguments
Tiffany Inc. argued that eBay Inc should be held liable for copyright infringement
because it sold counterfeit goods on its website. It also argued that even though eBay did not
know which goods were being infringed, it was liable because it ran a marketplace which
vendors used to sell counterfeit products (Tiffany (N.J.) Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 576 F). The pro of this
argument is that the website was aware that the infringement was happening. The con is that it
appears that Tiffany Inc. is suing the wrong defendant because it was not eBay that was
infringing but the users of the website. The argument by eBay was that it did not itself
counterfeit Tiffany’s products and thus did not infringe its mark, and Tiffany should have
targeted the specific vendors instead. The pro of this argument is that it relieves eBay of any
liability for the act of infringement of the mark, but the con is that it makes it seem like eBay
simply ignored the infringement despite knowing it was happening. Tiffany Inc. also argued that
eBay was advertising its products at a low price. The pro of this argument is that it indicated
eBay’s intention to mislead the consumers. The con is that Tiffany, Inc. had failed to present any
evidence of eBay’s false advertising to support the claim. The argument by eBay concerning the
false advertising claim was that prohibiting such advertisements would deter their advertisers,
forcing them to confirm their products' authenticity. The pro of this argument was that the
defendants made it seem like their actions were necessary to protect their users, but the con is
that it was enough to protect them from liability for false advertising. The side that presents the
most compelling argument is eBay because there is sufficient proof that it did not counterfeit the
products the vendors were selling on its website.
4
Biblical Integration and Technology
This case has a significant impact on Christianity based on the fact that the actions of the
vendors were wrong in wrongfully using the Trademark of another company so that they could
attract consumers to their product. eBay also goes against the Christian doctrines when they post
false information about the prices of eBay products so that it can attract consumers to its site.
This case's impact on technology sheds light on how technology can be used for deception,
shedding light on the ills that come with the development and adoption of technology. There is a
positive impact on society as the case helps the community understand how they can use
technology as a platform for advertising their business. A significant problem associated with
health information technology is the risk of privacy breaches which can make private
information accessible to malicious third parties.
Conclusion
The case was first heard in the U.S. District Court, where a bench decision was reached
in favour of eBay, stating that despite eBay being aware that the vendors were selling counterfeit
products in the name of Tiffany Inc's mark, they were not liable for contributory trademark
infringement (Tiffany (N.J.) Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 576 F). This was supported by the fact that eBay
removed any counterfeit listing as soon as they were notified based on the adequate
counterfeiting measures they had in place. Upon Tiffany Inc’s appeal to the Second Circuit
Appeals Court, the court affirmed the decision made by the district court and rejected the appeal
by Tiffany Inc. (Vicini, 2010). I agree with the ruling of both courts because there is no evidence
that eBay conducted the trademark infringement, and it had measures in place to take down the
listings that were reported to have committed trademark infringements.
5
References
Legal Information Institute (n.d). 15 U.S.C. §§1114, 1116-1118- Remedies; infringement;
innocent infringement by printers and publishers.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1114
LexisNexis (n.d). Tiffany (N.J.) Inc. v. eBay, Inc. - 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010).
https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-tiffany-nj-inc-v-ebay-inc
Tiffany (N.J.) Inc. v. eBay Inc., 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010).
Tiffany (N.J.) Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 576 F. Supp. 2d 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
Vicini, J. (2010). Supreme Court rejects Tiffany trademark appeal vs eBay.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tiffany-ebay-idUSTRE6AS3YJ20101129
