Judge Rules Costco Must Pay Tiffany $19 Million in Counterfeit Ring Lawsuit
U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that Costco Wholesale Corp. must pay more than $19 million for infringing trademarks owned by Tiffany & Co following a counterfeit ring lawsuit. The judgement includes $11.1 million plus interest, which is three times Tiffany’s lost profit, as well as $8.25 million in punitive damages.
Tiffany’s lawsuit alleged that Costco profited by selling “counterfeit” diamond engagement rings falsely bearing the “Tiffany” name. Its complaint included claims for trademark infringement, dilution, counterfeiting, unfair competition, injury to business reputation, false and deceptive business practices and false advertising.
According to Tiffany’s complaint, the jeweler discovered the counterfeit rings via a Costco customer. She saw a display of diamond rings at her local store with a sign that read “Platinum Tiffany.” A Costco staff member also “referred to each of the rings as a Tiffany ring and said the store generally carries one of each item.” The customer contacted Tiffany to determine if the rings were genuine.
They were not. “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,” Tiffany stated in its complaint. After first sending a cease-and-desist letter to Costco, Tiffany filed suit. It maintained 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 defending the suit, Costco argued that “Tiffany” is a generic term commonly used to describe a specific type of diamond ring setting. The retailer further maintained that its rings do not feature the engraved brand name or come in a blue box. Costco also filed a counterclaim alleging that Tiffany filed the suit strictly to limit competition, citing its lower cost for the same quality diamond.
Court Rules Costco Infringed Tiffany Mark
In 2015, the district court granted Tiffany summary judgement on the issue of trademark infringement and counterfeiting, 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 subsequently awarded Tiffany $5.5 million in compensatory damages under the Lanham Act. Relying on New York’s state laws governing unfair competition and deceptive acts, it also awarded the jewelry company $8.25 million in punitive damages for willful and bad faith infringement.
In her recent ruling, Judge Swain concluded that Tiffany’s lost profits were $3.7 million. However, she also determined that Costco was liable for treble damages under the Lanham Act, which provides that the court “may” award three times the actual damages. She also affirmed the jury’s award of punitive damages.
In her opinion, Judge Swain highlighted that Costco employees “described such rings as ‘Tiffany’ rings in response to customer inquiries, and were not perturbed when customers who then realized that the rings were not actually manufactured by Tiffany expressed anger or upset.” She also noted that the company’s management “displayed at best a cavalier attitude toward Costco’s use of the Tiffany name in conjunction with ring sales and marketing.”
In addition to the monetary damages, Judge Swain’s order prohibits Costco from selling anything that is not manufactured by Tiffany as “Tiffany” products, unless it uses modifiers suggesting that the products have, for example, a Tiffany “setting,” “set” or “style.”
Costco has already announced that it plans to appeal. “This was not a case about counterfeiting in the common understanding of that word — Costco was not selling imitation Tiffany & Co rings,” Costco said in a press statement. The rings “in question were not stamped or otherwise marked with the Tiffany & Co. name (but rather were stamped with the name of the company that manufactured them); they were accompanied by appraisal documents that did not mention Tiffany & Co., and with sales receipts that did not say Tiffany or Tiffany & Co. Notably,” the company added.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Brent “Giles” Davis, at 201-806-3364.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
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.
Costco Must Pay Tiffany $19 Million In Counterfeit Ring Lawsuit
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Judge Rules Costco Must Pay Tiffany $19 Million in Counterfeit Ring Lawsuit
U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that Costco Wholesale Corp. must pay more than $19 million for infringing trademarks owned by Tiffany & Co following a counterfeit ring lawsuit. The judgement includes $11.1 million plus interest, which is three times Tiffany’s lost profit, as well as $8.25 million in punitive damages.
Tiffany’s lawsuit alleged that Costco profited by selling “counterfeit” diamond engagement rings falsely bearing the “Tiffany” name. Its complaint included claims for trademark infringement, dilution, counterfeiting, unfair competition, injury to business reputation, false and deceptive business practices and false advertising.
According to Tiffany’s complaint, the jeweler discovered the counterfeit rings via a Costco customer. She saw a display of diamond rings at her local store with a sign that read “Platinum Tiffany.” A Costco staff member also “referred to each of the rings as a Tiffany ring and said the store generally carries one of each item.” The customer contacted Tiffany to determine if the rings were genuine.
They were not. “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,” Tiffany stated in its complaint. After first sending a cease-and-desist letter to Costco, Tiffany filed suit. It maintained 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 defending the suit, Costco argued that “Tiffany” is a generic term commonly used to describe a specific type of diamond ring setting. The retailer further maintained that its rings do not feature the engraved brand name or come in a blue box. Costco also filed a counterclaim alleging that Tiffany filed the suit strictly to limit competition, citing its lower cost for the same quality diamond.
Court Rules Costco Infringed Tiffany Mark
In 2015, the district court granted Tiffany summary judgement on the issue of trademark infringement and counterfeiting, 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 subsequently awarded Tiffany $5.5 million in compensatory damages under the Lanham Act. Relying on New York’s state laws governing unfair competition and deceptive acts, it also awarded the jewelry company $8.25 million in punitive damages for willful and bad faith infringement.
In her recent ruling, Judge Swain concluded that Tiffany’s lost profits were $3.7 million. However, she also determined that Costco was liable for treble damages under the Lanham Act, which provides that the court “may” award three times the actual damages. She also affirmed the jury’s award of punitive damages.
In her opinion, Judge Swain highlighted that Costco employees “described such rings as ‘Tiffany’ rings in response to customer inquiries, and were not perturbed when customers who then realized that the rings were not actually manufactured by Tiffany expressed anger or upset.” She also noted that the company’s management “displayed at best a cavalier attitude toward Costco’s use of the Tiffany name in conjunction with ring sales and marketing.”
In addition to the monetary damages, Judge Swain’s order prohibits Costco from selling anything that is not manufactured by Tiffany as “Tiffany” products, unless it uses modifiers suggesting that the products have, for example, a Tiffany “setting,” “set” or “style.”
Costco has already announced that it plans to appeal. “This was not a case about counterfeiting in the common understanding of that word — Costco was not selling imitation Tiffany & Co rings,” Costco said in a press statement. The rings “in question were not stamped or otherwise marked with the Tiffany & Co. name (but rather were stamped with the name of the company that manufactured them); they were accompanied by appraisal documents that did not mention Tiffany & Co., and with sales receipts that did not say Tiffany or Tiffany & Co. Notably,” the company added.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Brent “Giles” Davis, at 201-806-3364.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
