Judge rules in favor of Tiffany in Costco counterfeit suit

[ame]

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-costco-sold-counterfeit-tiffany-engagement-rings-us-judge-2015-9

 

[susimoo]

Re: Judge rules in favor of Tiffany in Costco counterfeit su

Thank you for the update. I often wondered what happened with this case.

 

[drruby]

Re: Judge rules in favor of Tiffany in Costco counterfeit su

Sometimes big companies do the dumbest things.

I'm still waiting to see ABC hit Google with a TM claim over ABC.xyz

How Google chose to use that TM is beyond me since Google is now a quasi media company and two public companies that are engaged in 'media' cannot use the same name IMO.

Costco will settle, they already LOST.

 

[Rockinruby]

Re: Judge rules in favor of Tiffany in Costco counterfeit su

Thanks Ame, I had wondered about that case too.

 

[ChristineRose]

Re: Judge rules in favor of Tiffany in Costco counterfeit su

I have a theory. Someone who had some sort of regional role didn't understand the difference between "Tiffany" and "Tiffany Style" and made the deceptive signs. Someone else who did understand Tiffany Style thought they were real, and told sales staff to misrepresent the rings. The complaint made it clear that it was widespread and not a "rogue" clerk. Costco was guilty, and they knew it. The obvious thing to do would be to fire someone, apologize to Tiffany, reevaluate their procedures, and pay some money to Tiffany and to people who bought the fake rings.

But when they talked to the lawyers, they were told that this would cost them a lot in reputation and fines, and that they had a decent chance of convincing a court that "Tiffany" is now generic, like aspirin or videotape. It didn't work though. Tiffany has spent a lot of effort on enforcing their brand.

In other words, they knew they were wrong, but decided to gamble. And lost.

 

[ame]

Re: Judge rules in favor of Tiffany in Costco counterfeit su

To be fair though, that setting, at this point anyway, it IS kind of a "generic" style. EVERYONE has their version. It's like kleenex. Not many people call it tissue, they call it kleenex. I don't call it puffs, I don't call it tissue. I call it kleenex. Regardless of what it actually is brandwise.

But in this particular case, if it didn't have the actual TIFFANY AND CO stamp in it, it isn't real. And that should've been obvious to the buyer.

 

[telephone89]

Re: Judge rules in favor of Tiffany in Costco counterfeit su

To be fair though, that setting, at this point anyway, it IS kind of a "generic" style. EVERYONE has their version. It's like kleenex. Not many people call it tissue, they call it kleenex. I don't call it puffs, I don't call it tissue. I call it kleenex. Regardless of what it actually is brandwise.

But in this particular case, if it didn't have the actual TIFFANY AND CO stamp in it, it isn't real. And that should've been obvious to the buyer.

Costco carries a lot of name brands, but seriously, who would think they were buying tiffany without even looking at this? I feel bad for them, but buyers need to do some research too

 

[ChristineRose]

Re: Judge rules in favor of Tiffany in Costco counterfeit su

If you asked 10 random people what "Tiffany" means to them, what would you hear though? Would you hear about long prongs set up over the band, or would you hear about blue boxes and snooty sales people? I don't think the Tiffany stamp would be considered definitive. I for one don't know if every Tiffany piece always has the stamp. (I'm sure I'd find out if I researched it. )If a Tiffany clerk told me otherwise, I wouldn't accuse her of trying to sell me a counterfeit right there in the store. Also, the Tiffany spy shoppers did ask and got told that they were still Tiffany. Tiffany actually found out about it when people called them and asked them why Costco was selling Tiffany. These were people who were suspicious but had been convinced by Costco clerks that the pieces were real.

 

[decisively_unsure]

To be fair though, that setting, at this point anyway, it IS kind of a "generic" style. EVERYONE has their version. It's like kleenex. Not many people call it tissue, they call it kleenex. I don't call it puffs, I don't call it tissue. I call it kleenex. Regardless of what it actually is brandwise.

But in this particular case, if it didn't have the actual TIFFANY AND CO stamp in it, it isn't real. And that should've been obvious to the buyer.

It is a highly copied / ripped off style, it is unfair to call such a successful design "generic" when really it is a brand marque. I know what you mean though...

The reason Costco has been stung is because there was enough reason to believe that they were "passing off" their rings as Tiffany.

I can understand the desire for the setting, the original Tiffany designs are especially stunning.

 

[angela06]

Re: Judge rules in favor of Tiffany in Costco counterfeit su

I was just looking at the BGD site for a new setting and they have changed the names of their Tiffany style settings. They are now Classic Style.

 

[decisively_unsure]

I was just looking at the BGD site for a new setting and they have changed the names of their Tiffany style settings. They are now Classic Style.

A wise move. Very recent too must be off the back of this.

 

[CravingDiamonds]

Re: Judge rules in favor of Tiffany in Costco counterfeit su

Thank you for the article. I was wondering what happened with this case.

 

[ennui]

Re: Judge rules in favor of Tiffany in Costco counterfeit su

To be fair though, that setting, at this point anyway, it IS kind of a "generic" style. EVERYONE has their version. It's like kleenex. Not many people call it tissue, they call it kleenex. I don't call it puffs, I don't call it tissue. I call it kleenex. Regardless of what it actually is brandwise.

But in this particular case, if it didn't have the actual TIFFANY AND CO stamp in it, it isn't real. And that should've been obvious to the buyer.

I agree with you. I've always thought of Tiffany style settings, with the long prongs and the diamond up high. There isn't a lot of room on those little cards in the jewelry case for long explanations.

I'm disappointed that Costco lost. However, I'm glad that there are no monetary damages at this point.

 

[decisively_unsure]

It is testament to Tiffany if they have such a widely imitated style, but it isn't a "classic" setting in the generic sense it is a very Tiffany-specific design.

 

[december-fire]

An update on this lawsuit by Tiffany against Costco:

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/comp...-tiffany-rings-us-judge/ar-AAq89l2?li=AAggFp5

In case the link doesn't work, here's the text:


"Costco owes Tiffany $19.4 million for fake Tiffany rings: U.S. judge

A federal judge on Monday said Tiffany & Co. may recover at least $19.4 million in damages from Costco Wholesale over the warehouse club chain's illegal sale of counterfeit diamond engagement rings bearing the "Tiffany" name.

U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain said Tiffany deserves $11.1 million, plus interest, representing triple the lost profit from Costco's trademark infringement, plus the $8.25 million in punitive damages awarded by a jury last October.

The Manhattan judge also permanently barred Costco from selling anything that Tiffany did not make as "Tiffany" products, unless it uses modifiers suggesting that the products have, for example, a Tiffany "setting," "set" or "style."

© REUTERS/Arnd Wiegmann

Costco did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Tiffany had sued Costco on Valentine's Day in 2013.

While the case concerned only about 2,500 rings, Tiffany sued to protect its brand and cachet as one of the world's best-known luxury retailers.

Tiffany last month named industry veteran Alessandro Bogliolo as its new chief executive, to help arrest declines in same-store sales as millennials spend elsewhere on accessories.

Costco had argued that "Tiffany" had become a generic term, excusing its use on a standalone basis.

But the judge found Costco's defenses "not credible," given evidence that displays of fine jewelry were a key part of the Issaquah, Washington-based company's marketing strategy.

Salespeople "described such rings as 'Tiffany' rings in response to customer inquiries, and were not perturbed when customers who then realized that the rings were not actually manufactured by Tiffany expressed anger or upset," Swain wrote.

Meanwhile, Costco's upper management "displayed at best a cavalier attitude toward Costco's use of the Tiffany name in conjunction with ring sales and marketing," the judge added.

The jury had awarded Tiffany $5.5 million rather than $3.7 million for lost profit. Swain found the lower sum sufficient.

Leigh Harlan, Tiffany's general counsel, in a statement said the decision "sends a clear and powerful message" to anyone seeking to infringe the New York-based company's trademark.

"We brought this case because we felt a responsibility to protect the value of our customers' purchases and to ensure that Costco's customers were not misled," she said.

The case is Tiffany and Co et al v. Costco Wholesale Corp, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 13-01041."

 

[Karl_K]

This was a slam dunk for Tiffany, I am surprised they didn't settle out of court.
That a reasonable person would be lead to believe it was the a real Tiffany is the definition of trademark infringement and that is what happened.

 

[flyingpig]

Court tosses the ruling.

U.S. appeals court voids Tiffany's judgment against Costco over fake 'Tiffany' rings

A federal appeals court on Monday overturned Tiffany & Co's $21 million judgment against Costco Wholesale Corp over the warehouse club chain's sale of generic diamond engagement rings bearing the "Tiffany" name.

www.reuters.com