Tiffany’s lawyers have argued for years that eBay should be proactive in keeping counterfeit products off its site and thereby protecting Tiffany’s reputation.  eBay’s representatives maintained that the site’s policy of responding to complaints is more than enough.

Now Tiffany’s lost its last chance to score a win (at least in the U.S.).

Michelle Fang, eBay Associate General Counsel, stated as a result, "The U.S. Supreme Court’s cert. denial is a great victory for eBay and U.S. consumers.  We believe this case has always been about Tiffany’s efforts to prevent people from buying and selling authentic Tiffany products online, and the culmination of this case validates eBay’s business practices."

Fang then noted, "The decision lets stand the prior rulings of both the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the trial court, which found that eBay exceeds all legal requirements in the fight against counterfeits."

The eBay-Tiffany dispute started way back in 2004, when Tiffany sued eBay on the grounds that it didn’t do enough to keep counterfeit merchandise off its site.  Tiffany lost that case in July of 2008, only to appeal in August of the same year.

Now, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with eBay, and Michael R. Jacobson, eBay’s general counsel, stated in response, "The decision is a critically important victory for online consumers who want the best prices for genuine products and underscores eBay’s commitment to connecting buyers and sellers under the pillars of trust, value, and selection."

Jacobson then continued, "The ruling validates eBay’s leading efforts to fight counterfeiting and its commitment to providing consumers with choice and value in a safe and trusted marketplace.  We continue to support cooperation, rather than litigation, as the best way to address these issues in everyone’s best interests . . ."

Only Tiffany may still appeal again in an attempt to take the case to the Supreme Court, meaning this isn’t necessarily the end of the lawsuit and all its lawyers’ work.

Patrick Dorsey, general counsel for Tiffany, stated, "Unfortunately, the trial court incorrectly held that trademark holders and not eBay are responsible for policing the eBay site.  The effect of this is that eBay can continue to profit at the expense of consumers and trademark holders."

 

Dorsey then continued, "In our view, this approach makes no sense as a matter of law or policy.  Once eBay has reason to know that a specific brand like TIFFANY & CO. is being widely counterfeited and sold, eBay should be compelled to investigate and take action to protect its customers and stop the illegal conduct."

eBay’s been up to its neck in these sorts of matters lately, with recent developments including a $63 million judgment against it in France and a meeting with British luxury goods manufacturers.  Having the Tiffany ruling overturned would split the good/bad tie and possibly set some new legal precedents in America.

Lawyers on every side are probably having fun, anyway, and eBay’s investors will be happy to know that the company’s stock is building on a three-day climb.

 The 2004 lawsuit brought by Tiffany in U.S. District Court in New York and the ruling in eBay’s favor could influence how business is done online.

Tiffany claimed that eBay ignored the sale of fake Tiffany silver jewelry on its site. eBay said the jeweler did not participate in eBay programs that help brand owners prevent fraud.

"The Court concludes that Tiffany has failed to meet its burden in proving its claims," wrote U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan in his opinion.

"Tiffany has failed to demonstrate that eBay knowingly encouraged others to dilute Tiffany’s trademarks," he wrote. "Rather, to the extent that eBay may have possessed general knowledge of infringement and dilution by sellers on its Web site, eBay did not possess knowledge or a reason to know of specific instances of trademark infringement or dilution as required under the law."

eBay said in a statement,"The ruling confirms that eBay acted reasonably and has adequate procedures in place to effectively address counterfeiting. The ruling appropriately establishes that protecting brands and trademarks is the primary burden of rights owners."