Tiffany & Co. Wins Big in New York Trademark Infringement Suit
Costco Wholesale Corp. will pay more than $13 million in damages for infringing trademarks held by Tiffany & Co. Relying on New York’s State laws governing unfair competition and deceptive acts, a federal jury awarded the jewelry company $8.25 million in punitive damages for willful and bad faith infringement.
Alleged Trademark Infringement
As we previously discussed on our Business Law News Blog, Tiffany & Co. (Tiffany) was contacted by a customer of Costco Wholesale Corp. (Costco) regarding the authenticity of rings sold by the wholesale retailer. According to Tiffany’s complaint, the customer saw a display of diamond rings at her local store with a sign that read “Platinum Tiffany.” A Costco employee also “referred to each of the rings as a Tiffany ring and said the store generally carries one of each item.”
After verifying that the rings were not authentic, Tiffany sent Costco a cease and desist letter and ultimately filed suit. Its complaint alleged trademark infringement, dilution, counterfeiting, unfair competition, injury to business reputation, false and deceptive business practices and false advertising.
“Neither of the rings identified in the Huntington Beach store as ‘Tiffany’ was, in fact, a Tiffany ring, nor was it manufactured by, approved by, licensed by, or otherwise in any way properly associated with Tiffany,” the complaint stated. Tiffany further alleged that Costco has been using the Tiffany trademark to sell diamond engagement rings for several years and avoided using the Tiffany name in online advertising in order to avoid detection.
In defense of the trademark infringement suit, Costco argued that it used the word “Tiffany” in the generic context to describe the style and setting of the ring, which it maintains includes “multiple slender prongs extending upward from a base to hold a single gemstone.” The retailer also highlighted that its rings were not sold in Tiffany’s signature blue box.
The federal court granted Tiffany summary judgement on the issue of trademark infringement, concluding that consumers were likely to be confused by the way Costco marketed the rings in its stores. The court also rejected the notion that Tiffany’s trademark had become a generic term to describe a ring setting. A jury awarded Tiffany $5.5 million in compensatory damages.
Punitive Damages Award
The federal statute governing trademark infringement (Lanham Act) does not authorize punitive damages in cases of willful trademark infringement. However, in this case, Tiffany was successful in obtaining a sizable award under state law.
New York General Business Law section 349 prohibits deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in the State of New York. The statute further provides that “the court may, in its discretion, increase the award of damages to an amount not to exceed three times the actual damages up to one thousand dollars if the court finds the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this section.” Similarly, New York General Business Law section 360(m) allows the court to enter “judgment for an amount not to exceed three times such profits and damages and/or reasonable attorneys’ fees of the prevailing party in such cases where the court finds the other party committed such wrongful acts with knowledge or in bad faith or otherwise as according to the circumstances of this case.”
In this case, Tiffany argued that Costco specifically directed vendors to make jewelry display boxes that resembled Tiffany boxes. It further provided evidence that Costco staff members knew that customers were confused about the authenticity of the rings, but failed to take steps to rectify it. Relying on the two state statues reference above, the jury seemingly agreed with Tiffany, as they hit Costco with $8.25 million in punitive damages, bringing the total damages award to $13.75 million.
Do you have any questions about this case? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Shane Birnbaum, at 201-806-3364.
Arbitration vs. Litigation vs. Mediation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Know Before Signing a Contract
Arbitration resolves disputes privately before an arbitrator whose decision is usually final, while litigation resolves them in court with full rights of appeal. Whether a business ends up in arbitration or litigation is often decided when it signs the contract, long before any dispute arises. Key Takeaways When facing a contract dispute, carefully consider your […]
Can You Own Part of a New Jersey Business Without a Written Agreement?
Can you own part of a business in New Jersey without a written agreement? Yes, it is possible. Under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act, a partnership can arise when two or more people carry on a business as co-owners for profit, whether or not they ever intended to form one. Ownership doesn’t necessarily depend on […]
Crisis-Proofing Your New Jersey Business: Building a Crisis Response Plan Before You Need One
For New Jersey businesses, crisis preparedness should be viewed as a legal and operational function, not simply an emergency-management exercise. A well-designed crisis response plan can help preserve evidence, protect confidential communications, meet reporting obligations, limit unnecessary exposure, and prevent an already difficult situation from becoming a larger legal problem. Key Takeaways A serious crisis […]
Monmouth County's Next Development Wave: What Developers and Investors Need to Know
Monmouth County is entering a significant new phase of development. For those looking to acquire property or undertake a new project, understanding the market opportunity is only the beginning. The more important question is whether a particular property can actually be developed as contemplated and what approvals, agreements, and other conditions will be required to […]
Are Your Conversations with AI Shielded from Discovery? Courts Are Split
Whether a client’s prompts to a generative AI tool and the documents it produces are protected from disclosure depends on the case type, who claims protection, and whether counsel was involved. In United States v. Heppner, a New York federal judge ruled that a criminal defendant’s communications with an AI platform were protected by neither […]
Guardianships in New Jersey: When a Loved One Can No Longer Manage Personal or Financial Affairs
When a family member can no longer make important decisions for themself, the question is often not whether the family will step in, but whether they have the legal authority to do so. A spouse may manage household finances, or an adult child may arrange medical care and pay bills. Still, informal assistance does not […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
