EBay Inc. scored an important victory in court Monday, as a federal judge said companies such as jeweler Tiffany & Co. are responsible for policing their trademarks online, not auction platforms like eBay.

Tiffany had sued eBay in 2004, arguing that most items listed for sale as genuine Tiffany products on eBay's sites were fakes.

But U.S. District Judge Richard J. Sullivan in New York ruled that eBay can't be held liable for trademark infringement "based solely on their generalized knowledge that trademark infringement might be occurring on their Web sites."

The judge said that when Tiffany notified eBay of suspected counterfeit goods, eBay "immediately removed those listings." Although the online auction company refused to go further, by preemptively taking down suspicious listings for Tiffany jewelry, the judge said eBay didn't have to make such a move.

View: Yahoo! News



There are 9 additional comments
Advertisement
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #1 Posted by Airlink on 15 Jul 2008 - 00:59
Yeah, another win for freedom and liberty.
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #2 Posted by vetneufuse on 15 Jul 2008 - 01:48
As it should be, a company should have to defend its products on its own... not tell another company to do it for them... if they wanted eBay to do it, they should have to pay eBay to do it, just as anyone else would... eBay already took measures to remove anything the company said was not legit... now if the company would give eBay a list of criteria to do it themselves... then they should have to pay eBay to do that as I said before... eBay is no different then listing something in your local paper.. should your paper have to police the classifieds? sure they do basic cleanup's of ads... but they arnt forced by every company to do it...
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #3 Posted by schwit on 15 Jul 2008 - 03:13
Could you imagine if pre-eBay that newspapers would have had to guarantee that items for sale in the classifieds were not stolen or counterfeit? Give me a fracken break.

This is beyond a no brainer.
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #4 Posted by Shiranui on 15 Jul 2008 - 03:39
I thought this was going to be about "I think we're alone now..." Tiffany...
(2 replies) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #5 Posted by Andrey on 15 Jul 2008 - 04:19
ha? Doesn't make sense... Apparently French do not think so in a virtually identical case:

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/cont...gn_id=rss_daily
Quote this comment #5.1 Posted by FloatingFatMan on 15 Jul 2008 - 06:49
(Andrey said @ #5)
ha? Doesn't make sense... Apparently French do not think so in a virtually identical case:

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/cont...gn_id=rss_daily


True, but think about it. A french company suing an american company in a french court... Who did you THINK would win?
Quote this comment #5.2 Posted by +macf13nd on 15 Jul 2008 - 09:16
(FloatingFatMan said @ #5.1)
(Andrey said @ #5)
ha? Doesn't make sense... Apparently French do not think so in a virtually identical case:

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/cont...gn_id=rss_daily


True, but think about it. A french company suing an american company in a french court... Who did you THINK would win?


bien sur!
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #6 Posted by C_Guy on 15 Jul 2008 - 14:54
"a federal judge said companies such as jeweler Tiffany & Co. are responsible for policing their trademarks online, not auction platforms like eBay."

Well that just makes sense now, doesn't it?
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #7 Posted by Burst404 on 15 Jul 2008 - 15:23
But YouTube can be held liable for the content their users post? whatever.
[1]

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.


Scroll to the Top
....
My Preferences
....
Communicating with server
Loading
Please Wait...
....
Loading
 X 
....