Last week, a federal jury found in favor of the high-end jewelry brand Tiffany, concluding that Costco’s 2012 collection of “Tiffany” engagement rings was a trademark infringement, and wasn’t just the name of a popular diamond setting. The jury awarded $5.5 million in actual damages to Tiffany for the infringing ring sales, and has now awarded the jeweler $8.25 million in punitive damages for infringing on the brand’s copyright. [More]
Since 2012, Costco and Tiffany have been fighting in court over the question of whether “Tiffany” describes a jewelry company and a prestigious brand, or a just a style of diamond solitaire ring. The case finally reached a jury this month, and the jury’s verdict is that Costco owes Tiffany $5.5 million in compensation, and an amount yet to be decided in punitive damages. [More]
The International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition is exactly what it sounds like: a coalition of frequently-counterfeited brands, law firms, investigators, and marketplaces working together to root out counterfeit goods. However, big brand names like Tiffany and Gucci America quit the coalition in protest after the Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba was allowed to join. The brands were concerned that the IACC had allowed in the exact kind of company they were fighting. [More]
A few months ago, a federal judge found in favor of Tiffany in a years-long dispute between the jeweler and warehouse club Costco. At issue was the name “Tiffany,” which the warehouse club was using as a generic term to describe a style of ring, and the jeweler claims as its brand identity. Now a new ad campaign from Tiffany is nominally aimed at brides, but might as well be mailed straight to Costco’s lawyers. [More]
While most consumers’ image of Costco involves people stocking up on cases of ketchup, toilet paper, and bottled water, the warehouse retailer does sell some high-end jewelry and accessories. But the folks at Tiffany & Company claim the “Tiffany” rings that were being sold at Costco were anything but. [More]
Want your credit line increased, APR lowered, or your declined credit card application approved? Begging and pleading with customer service not getting you anywhere except front row seats to your personal puddle of shame? Then give some of the “backdoor numbers” a shot.
Remember the French lawsuit that Louis Vuitton won against eBay earlier this month? A French court said eBay was responsible for policing their auctions for counterfeit items—at least that was the official language. It also, unfortunately, helped solidify LVMH’s tight control over who sells its luxury merchandise. This week a judge in New York ruled the opposite direction against Tiffany & Co., telling them, “Tiffany must ultimately bear the burden of protecting its trademark.” It’s a win for eBay. Is it for the consumer?
Ritzy Fifth Avenue jeweler Tiffany & Co. failed to ship Chris’ grandfather a bracelet for his wife in time for Christmas. We expect a certain level of service from high-end stores, but Tiffany’s extravagant amends caught us by surprise.
Tiffany said that according to the judgment issued by a federal court in New York, Starglam Inc., and its principal, John Shamir, should not engage in any further counterfeiting of Tiffany-branded items or infringing on its trademark.
Tiffany & Co, of breakfast fame, has been fined for failing to tell the government about a potentialy hazardous silver teething rattle.
Being born with a silver spoon in your mouth poses a choking hazard, reports the Consumer Product Safety Commission.