Originally posted 2008-08-11 15:56:06. Republished by Blog Post PromoterTiffany’s is, not surprisingly, appealing the decision dismissing its claims against eBay.
Originally posted 2008-12-05 00:01:56. Republished by Blog Post PromoterSee, we don’t agree with Public Citizen all the time! Read on, via the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF): [EFF] along with Public Citizen and Public Knowledge urged a U.S. court of appeals Wednesday to reject jewelry-maker Tiffany’s attempt to rewrite trademark law and create new barriers for […]
Originally posted 2010-12-23 08:00:54. Republished by Blog Post Promoter The Second Circuit, unsurprisingly according to most commentators, has affirmed the decision of the Southern District of New York refusing to find eBay liable for contributory trademark infrintgement in the Tiffany v. eBay case. I have been following the case since before it was filed (yeah, […]
Originally posted 2008-07-14 16:10:07. Republished by Blog Post PromoterReuters reports that Tiffany’s gamble has not paid off: EBay Inc scored a major legal victory on Monday, when a federal judge ruled that Tiffany & Co failed to prove the online auctioneer was responsible for the sale of fake Tiffany jewelry on its website. “The Court […]
Something about a judge loves a fence, I guess–and not only fences like eBay.
Susan Scafidi reports: If Dad says no, ask Mom. And if the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York says no, ask the 2nd Circuit. As expected, Tiffany has filed a notice of appeal of its loss last month to eBay in a lawsuit alleging, among other things, that eBay should bear […]
Sharmil McKee has the latest on the Tiffany v. eBay trial: The closing arguments concluded on Tuesday, 11/20 after a week-long bench trial. The judge ordered the attorneys to submit briefs by Dec. 7. A bench trial is a trial conducted before a judge only with no jury. So the judge will serve as the […]
Originally posted 2012-01-01 00:01:43. Republished by Blog Post PromoterFirst posted November 3, 2011. Instapundit links to Donald Douglas’s blog post, Beating Righthaven. Excerpt: Righthaven files “no warning” lawsuits. That is, it gives no advance notification to defendants, which violates the norm of providing “take down notices” to those suspected of copyright violations. By doing this, Righthaven […]
First published on July 15, 2013. Here I thought I understood something about the Lanham Act. But wait, there’s more! Did you know this?: The purpose of the Lanham Act is to protect registered and valid copyrights, trademarks, and patents. That’s from Coach, Inc. v. Southwest Flea Market., 2:10-CV-02410-DKV, 2012 WL 8470191 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 21, […]
Here I thought I understood something about the Lanham Act. But wait, there’s more! Did you know this?: The purpose of the Lanham Act is to protect registered and valid copyrights, trademarks, and patents. That’s from Coach, Inc. v. Southwest Flea Market., 2:10-CV-02410-DKV, 2012 WL 8470191 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 21, 2012), an important decision concerning, among […]
If Tiffany was miffed at Costco before, it’s positively infuriated now. You will recall that on February 14 the high-end jeweler Tiffany & Co. sued the decidedly-not-high-end warehouse club Costco, alleging that the latter was describing certain diamond rings as “Tiffany” rings in at least one of its locations, thus infringing upon the trademark rights […]
[Editor’s note: When this was first posted, I — not Matthew, I, Ron Coleman — failed to utilize the drop-down box and make sure that MDB showed as the author of this piece, probably thinking that the picture at left would do the trick. Based on some blog posts, um, it didn’t. Sorry to all […]