Maryland Intellectual Property Law Blog : Maryland Intellectual Property Lawyer & Attorney : Brian Wm. Higgins : Serving Baltimore, Columbia, Frederick

     "eBay tumbled Tiffany's carefully stacked legal arguments," writes law professor and Counterfeit Chic blogger Susan Scafidi.  On Monday, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that eBay is not liable to Tiffany & Co. for the sale of counterfeit goods through its auction website. The court ruled that Tiffany, and similar companies, are ultimately responsible for policing their trademarks online, rather than auction-based companies like eBay. "The court's ruling is in line with well established legal precedent which holds that the obligation to enforce trademarks rests with the trademark holder," wrote eBay in a published statement on its website Monday. 

     You win one, you lose one. In stark contrast to the findings of the New York court, just a few weeks ago the Tribunal de Commerce court in Paris ordered Ebay to pay over $60 million dollars to Louis Vuitton and Christian Dior for allowing the sale of counterfeit merchandise through the company's auction website. The Paris court described eBay's anti-counterfeit measures as "empty."  The court concluded that eBay had committed "serious errors" in permitting the sale of counterfeit goods, which, the court found, violated Louis Vuitton and Christian Dior's copyrights and trademarks. eBay is apparently appealing the ruling. In a published statement on its website, eBay characterized Louis Vuitton's and Christian Dior's lawsuit as an "overreaching...attempt to impose, in France, a business model that restricts consumer choice through an anti-competitive business practice."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

     The Port of Baltimore is the destination for approximately 40 million tons of bulk and container cargo each year, making the Port one of the busiest in the nation. Its popularity is the result of geography: two-thirds of the U.S. population lives within an overnight drive of Baltimore. With all that cargo coming into Baltimore, the Port is an obvious entry point for counterfeit goods that infringe federally-registered U.S. trademarks.

     The Department of Homeland Security plays a role in preventing infringing goods from entering U.S. markets by enforcing “parallel imports” regulations. According to Customs Directive No. 2310-008A, it is the policy of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (part of DHS) to exclude from entry into the U.S., detain, and/or seize, violative trademarked goods. Under its intellectual property rights (IPR) enforcement regime, CBP may detain goods at ports where there is a “reasonable suspicion” that the goods bear marks which violate a federally registered trademark. The detaining Customs officers are tasked with assessing whether marks are counterfeit or confusingly similar to U.S. registered marks, making them the first line defenders against infringement originating at the borders. See Addressing Parallel Imports Goods Under U.S. Laws for more information about this subject (used by permission).

Notes:

• Thanks to Dave Weslow, co-author of the linked article, for the idea for this post

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link