Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc.
American legal case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc. 600 F.3d 93 (2nd Cir. 2010),[1] is a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case in which plaintiff Tiffany & Co. filed the complaint, first in 2004, alleging that eBay constituted direct and contributory trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising since it facilitated and advertised counterfeit Tiffany jewelries on its online market. On July 14, 2008, the District Court for S. D. N. Y. decided in favor of eBay on all claims. Tiffany appealed these decisions to the Second Circuit. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court with respect to the claims of trademark infringement and dilution. The false advertising claim was returned to the district court for further processing, which was then ruled in favor of eBay.
Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc. | |
---|---|
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Full case name | Tiffany (NJ) Inc. and Tiffany and Company v. eBay Inc. |
Argued | July 16, 2009 |
Decided | April 1, 2010 |
Citation(s) | 600 F.3d 93 |
Case history | |
Prior action(s) | Tiffany Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 576 F. Supp. 2d 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (district court found no trademark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, trademark dilution) |
Subsequent action(s) | Tiffany Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 2010 WL 3733894 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (district court found no evidence of false advertisement) Tiffany Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 647 (writ of certiorari denied by Supreme Court) |
Holding | |
The court affirmed the judgment of the district court with respect to the claims of trademark infringement and dilution. The false advertising claim was returned to the district court for further processing, which was then ruled in favor of eBay. | |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Robert David Sack, Barrington Daniels Parker, Jr., Richard W. Goldberg |
Case opinions | |
eBay’s use of the Tiffany trademark is protected by the nominative fair use defense. Generalized knowledge of infringing activities by third parties is insufficient to attach contributory trademark infringement liability. Extrinsic evidence is necessary to determine customer confusion for Lanham Act false advertisement liability. | |
Majority | Sack, joined by a unanimous panel |
Keywords | |
counterfeiting, Lanham Act, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, nominative fair use |