FYI...Tiffany & eBay

[Kiz]

Tiffany Sues EBay, Says Fake Items Sold on Web Site



By Brad Dorfman CHICAGO (Reuters) - Luxury jeweler Tiffany & Co. (NYSE:TIF - news) has sued eBay Inc. (Nasdaq:EBAY - news), claiming the online auctioneer has contributed to violations of the Tiffany trademark by letting counterfeit items be sold on its Web site, a Tiffany spokesman said on Monday
A study of certain pieces of "Tiffany" jewelry sold on eBay this year showed that 73 percent of the jewelry was counterfeit, Mark Aaron, a Tiffany spokesman, said in a statement confirming the lawsuit, which was filed Friday afternoon in U.S. District Court in New York.
An eBay spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment.
The lawsuit asks that eBay be stopped from listing any "Tiffany" merchandise that is not genuine and for eBay to account for profits it made on the sale of counterfeit Tiffany merchandise or else pay up to $1 million for each type of fake Tiffany merchandise sold on the Web site, said James Swire, the lawyer representing Tiffany.
"We have been in correspondence with eBay for some period of time," Swire said. "A year ago, they declined to themselves police their auction sites for counterfeit Tiffany merchandise and said we should use the programs they have to police the site."
Using eBay computer programs, Tiffany had two employees work full-time policing the site and forced the shutdown of about 19,000 auction sites on eBay, he said. This year, Tiffany randomly bought silver "Tiffany" jewelry on eBay and found that 73 percent of it was counterfeit, 5 percent of it was genuine and the rest was promoted as "Tiffany-like" but not promoted as genuine.

 

[aljdewey]

This shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone.

 

[Hest88]

I really find these lawsuits annoying because it worries me that eBay is going to start banning all sorts of things I'm interested in just because they might get sued. I think of eBay the way I think of the classified section of a newspaper. I really wish these stupid, old-fashioned companies would get on board with the Internet and start understanding how eBay and ISPs etc. really work instead of thinking of them the way they think of traditional companies.

 

[glitterata]

Anyone know whether Tiffany's has a case against Ebay, as opposed to the Ebay sellers who sold the counterfeit items?

 

[msb2ncsu]

When 3/4th of the items being sold as Tiffany's are counterfiet then there is a problem. WHile it may seem like it sucks that certain brands or items would be banned, I think it would suck more to allow counterfeit black market operations to thrive in the open air so to speak.

 

[Hest88]

Yes, then they should crack-down on the sellers or notify eBay of individual violations instead of going the heavy-handed method by suing eBay and demanding compensation. Gee, maybe Prada should sue the city of New York for all the counterfeit bags being sold on the streets.

 

[CaptAubrey]

not quite the same. nyc hasn't set up a special protected area for those vendors nor is it taking a percentage of every transaction. if they were, they would be getting sued, and rightfully so.




ebay needs to clean house in a major way. things like this are overdue imo.

 

[Hest88]

I understand that CA, but to me it smacks of the same kind of B&M-oriented thinking that resulted in the Microsoft/Netscape decision.

If any site if routinely sued over 3rd party content then I can forsee a day when all sites police content the way companies do, resulting in an end to kind of free exchange of information and goods that we expect from the Internet. Already there are valuable collectible items are eBay doesn't allow to be sold just because some people object to them.

Ah well. No one likes the free market when it works against them.

 

[msb2ncsu]

----------------
On 6/21/2004 4:46:47 PM Hest88 wrote:


If any site if routinely sued over 3rd party content then I can forsee a day when all sites police content the way companies do, resulting in an end to kind of free exchange of information and goods that we expect from the Internet.

----------------

If the selling of an item is illegal then it has no place on the site. Counterfeit items are no different than selling drugs, kidneys, or animal parts... they are illegal, plain and simple. If this was competition of Tiffany's then I could see your complaint but this is not what I would classify as a legitimate "free exhange of information and goods"

 

[noobie]

----------------
On 6/21/2004 4:26:56 PM CaptAubrey wrote:







not quite the same. nyc hasn't set up a special protected area for those vendors nor is it taking a percentage of every transaction. if they were, they would be getting sued, and rightfully so.




ebay needs to clean house in a major way. things like this are overdue imo.

----------------

I have to agree with Capt here. ebay has not been diligent enough in cleaning up fraudulent activity especially with abusive vendors. I think it would by good in the long run for ebay and everyone (expect fraudulent vendors) if it were cleaned up. If there existed a legit secondary market for Tiffany goods on ebay (I know, SignedPieces, but it was an just an example), I would gladly buy if I were in the market. Right now it's (ebay) too much like the Itaewon market in Seoul Korea where you know that 99% if not 100% of all of that Coach, Gucci, LV and NBA clothing is all fake.

 

[Hest88]

Look, believe me, I understand where you're coming from. From my perspective, though, someone putting something up on eBay is like someone paying your local paper to put in a classified ad. Can you imagine expecting your newspaper to check out every ad to make sure the good being offered is legitimate? If someone started suing your paper because they bought something that was counterfeit, I can just see the paper forbidding classified ads with e-rings or purses or anything else related to the lawsuit. It sets a precedent where eBay's disclaimers are no longer sufficient AND sets a precedent where everyone can sue eBay possibly eliminating many name-brand items from eBay's listings.

 

[SFDavey]

Seems to me that it would be far more effective for Tiffany's to get the word out to the public that their product is not likely tro be found on eBay.

It is not possible for eBay to "police" the Tiffany name brand without becoming both a mediary and an appraiser: They would have to actually take possession of the product for a period of time long enough to determine if it really was Tiffany's product. This is contrary to the eBay business model on the most basic level.

Tiffany's needs to let the public know that the only place to dependably buy Tiffany's product is FROM Tiffany's.

 

[winyan]

If you ask me, the whole 'branding' thing is stupid. It's not like, for example a medicine in which one could get deathly ill from taking a counterfit medicine.

If people would get over the cache of 'names' we would see less of these stupid law suits.

win

 

[hoorray]

That's why you would never buy at Tiffany's Win. (or at least one reason.) However, branding is a legitimate way of doing business, and is integral to their success. Brands happen whether they are created or not through reputation.

I NEVER vote against a free market, but in this case, I think EBay is participating in the propagation of fake Tiffany's sales by taking a percentage of the sale, if nothing else. I think they need to clean up their shop.

 

[Introspector]

I think I mostly agree with Hest on all this, but can someone clarify for me what this percentage is that eBay takes? Which products, and for what reason?

Oh, and winyan, I think people's fixation to name brands, or rather names, is something just inherent to people. I'm not a name brand guy myself, but attachment to names seems to be built into our nature. For example, one of Adam's first jobs was to name all the animals. Not really making theological persuasions here (as I'm not even sure that makes sense to me), just humorous commentary.

 

[fire&ice]

Auctions in general are buyer beware. I don't see how ebay has responsibility for what fake tiffany objects sell. They don't warrantee anything. In what way would ebay be held accountable? I've seen fakes sell all the time in real life auctions. Sometimes the auction company will try to resolve the situation; but, many times it's clearly stated that the auction company does not warranty any objects sold is what the description says it is.

If Tiffany really wants to go after someone, why wouldn't it be the people who *make* the fake objects & the individual dealers who market them. When fakes appear in the marketplace in my area of expertise, we go after the source.

 

[CaptAubrey]

----------------
On 6/22/2004 2:55:32 PM fire&ice wrote:





In what way would ebay be held accountable?

----------------

i believe that tiffany's argument is that ebay is facilitating trademark infringement and profiting from it. that's an entirely different kettle of fish from auction fraud.

whether they'll win is anyone's guess, though.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 6/22/2004 3:11:10 PM CaptAubrey wrote:

----------------
On 6/22/2004 2:55:32 PM fire&ice wrote:



In what way would ebay be held accountable?

----------------

i believe that tiffany's argument is that ebay is facilitating trademark infringement and profiting from it. that's an entirely different kettle of fish from auction fraud.

whether they'll win is anyone's guess, though.
----------------

Ahh. Yes, a different arguement all together. But, how can they get around that ebay is a "secondary" market? Historically, they are. Gosh, a slippery slope. From my angle, with the premise that ebay was initially a collectible/used/antique = secondary marketer - if the lawsuit proceeds & they win - the ramifications could reach/affect my business. At the very core my business (could be called secondary market) is extremely subjective w/ very few rules. My head is spinning. For example, some of the period objects I sell have been licensed to another individual creating new objects of the design. Yet, I market the "name". I don't create any of the designs though.

 

[sumi]

----------------
On 6/22/2004 2:55:32 PM fire&ice wrote:



If Tiffany really wants to go after someone, why wouldn't it be the people who *make* the fake objects & the individual dealers who market them. When fakes appear in the marketplace in my area of expertise, we go after the source. ----------------

There are some practical decisions that go in to who you're going to sue. E-bay is easy to find and has deep pockets. It's sad, but true. That can be the determining factor when deciding who to sue.

 

[glitterata]

But Fire&Ice, many of the so-called Tiffany pieces on Ebay are brand new fakes. If you sold brand new fakes (which I'm sure you'd never in a million years do, of course), you'd expect to get in trouble, wouldn't you?

 

[Jolie]

Sorry, already saw a newspaper analogy, so I'm deleting mine.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 6/22/2004 5:47:18 PM glitterata wrote:

But Fire&Ice, many of the so-called Tiffany pieces on Ebay are brand new fakes. If you sold brand new fakes (which I'm sure you'd never in a million years do, of course), you'd expect to get in trouble, wouldn't you?----------------

Yes, but my guess is that the lawsuit is not limited to just "fakes" if one is going to pursue trademark infringement.

Again, why Ebay. I understand the deep pockets; but, I just don't see a suit there - except for maybe to stir things up as a warning. And, I know this isn't the way the world works - but it should - I simply can not understand why they don't go after the people *making* this fakes. *That's* the source.

 

[glitterata]

Really? It's trademark infringement to resell a genuine trademarked item calling it by its trademarked name?

I have trouble imagining how that could be possible.

Lawyers? Any thoughts?

 

[msb2ncsu]

----------------
On 6/23/2004 9:42:22 AM fire&ice wrote:

----------------

On 6/22/2004 5:47:18 PM glitterata wrote:


But Fire&Ice, many of the so-called Tiffany pieces on Ebay are brand new fakes. If you sold brand new fakes (which I'm sure you'd never in a million years do, of course), you'd expect to get in trouble, wouldn't you?----------------

Yes, but my guess is that the lawsuit is not limited to just 'fakes' if one is going to pursue trademark infringement.


Again, why Ebay. I understand the deep pockets; but, I just don't see a suit there - except for maybe to stir things up as a warning. And, I know this isn't the way the world works - but it should - I simply can not understand why they don't go after the people *making* this fakes. *That's* the source.

----------------

They want to remove any Tiffany named product because the vast majority of the ones on there are fake and therefore its pretty much lost its viability as a second-market for the legit products. Going afte rthe individuals is very difficult because of the anonymity factor. If you eliminate the means by which the counterfieters sell their product then you effectively shut down their operation, I mean how many people are going to buy Tiffany's items at a flea market or roadside vendor and believe they are legit. People selling authentic pieces can use consignement from reputable dealers just fine... an avenue that counterfieters would be unable to persue.\ (or at least not very successfully).

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 6/23/2004 10:36:01 AM msb2ncsu wrote:

----------------
On 6/23/2004 9:42:22 AM fire&ice wrote:

----------------

If you eliminate the means by which the counterfieters sell their product then you effectively shut down their operation, I mean how many people are going to buy Tiffany's items at a flea market or roadside vendor and believe they are legit. People selling authentic pieces can use consignement from reputable dealers just fine... an avenue that counterfieters would be unable to persue. (or at least not very successfully).----------------

Believe me, these are venues. Ebay is just *one* venue - one that does encompass the market. Tiffany makes hundreds of thousand of objects over the span of 100 years. Most are nickle & dime stuff. We are not referring to Tiffany Studios - a completely different nut. Shutting down ebay is not going to stop the sale of these items.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 6/23/2004 10:19:52 AM glitterata wrote:

Really? It's trademark infringement to resell a genuine trademarked item calling it by its trademarked name?

I have trouble imagining how that could be possible.

Lawyers? Any thoughts?----------------

Depends what happens with this suit & precisely what they are after. I'm sure they don't like the idea of items that sell in their store for say $400.00 selling on a open market for $100.00 even if it's not a fake. They are protecting their name.

Have you ever looked into the whole Rolex thing? - fascinating thing there. 1. they price fix 2. any fakes (even if most of the watch is genuine) can be destroyed by Rolex. 3. Any third party (i.e. anyone other than an authorized Rolex dealer) selling the watch has to disclaim the heck out of it & the warranty is void. Rolex keeps track of serial numbers & design. This is why these dopey watches sell for > 3k. They shouldn't. But, dang if I didn't buy into the hype & buy a new watch from an authorized dealer.

That said, I have been told that Rolex can do what they do because they have a patent/engineering thing on their watch. They win their suits. I guess Tiffany can copyright their designs.

The reason I'm being a bit of chicken little is that when laws/settlements/judgements are put into writing often they have periferal fallout that no one expects. I see it w/ the legislation to *try* and prevent puppy mills. All good & well intentioned; but, the truth lies in the fact that those will just go underground & breeders of rarer breeds (only one litter a year)will be forced to adhere to the regulations & incur significant costs. And, in my business these kind of things do impact me. I had my hand slapped by the owner of a company who bought the factory & the designs of a certain furniture manufacturer from the turn of the century. They call them "reissues". I called them not genuine & reproductions - well that went over like a turd in a punch bowl.

 

[codex57]

I really can''t see this case going anywhere. Even Tiffany admits some of the stuff sold on eBay is real. Ebay is set up quite similar to a newspaper''s classified section like someone mentioned. Ebay''s not in teh best position to tell what''s fake or not, Tiffany''s is. Tiffany''s may not like it, but it''s a real stretch of a claim. However, since IP law is still being hammered out, Tiffany''s can almost certainly survive summary judgment. Can''t imagine they''ll win though. Ramifications are too strong in favor of eBay.