Six month after a New York federal court ordered Castco to pay up $25 million for using Tiffany & Co.’s name on non-Tiffany & Co. engagement rings, the famed New York – based jewelry company has asked the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the lower court’s decision. Tiffany & Co. – which describes its “Tiffany” trademarks is one of the “most iconic in the world” that Castco is creating in connection with the 6-year long case, “Destrict Court and the jury properly found for Tiffany, and the judgment should be affirmed”.
Unsatisfied with the outcome at the district court level, Costco filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in September 2017, requesting that the court review – and undo – the lower court’s decision, generating on what Bloomberg Law called “the law’s broad, nebulous definition of counterfeiting – a more severe form of trademark infringement”. Counsel for Tiffany & Co. presented evidence during trial that Costco’s use of the “Tiffany” trademark intentionally created consumer confusion, which is the central element in a trademark infringement claim. However, as Costco pointed out, in order to determine whether such infringement reaches the level of counterfeiting, the product at play must be “substantially indistinguishable” from another.
In response to Costco’s appeal, Tiffany & Co. argues in a newly filed 73 page brief that the lower court’s grant of summary judgment on the issues of trademark infringement and counterfeiting liability – which stems from Costco’s sale of $6.000 – plus diamond tings labeled as “Tiffany” that thereby, gave hundreds, if not thousands, of Costco members the wrong impression about the origin of the sparklers should stand for a number of reasons.
First, Tiffany & Co. asserts that “it is undisputed that Costco” – which is the fourth largest retailer in the world – “intentionally used (its) famous name in point-of-sale signs to sell inferior copies of an engagement ring (style) for which Tiffany is renowned”.
Tiffany & Co. states that “the Polariod factors” – the elements used to determine whether there is a likelihood of consumer confusion at play, and thus, trademark infringement – “overwhelmingly favor Tiffany”, and as the lower court observed, “Costco did not offer any evidence “affirmatively demonstrating that consumers were not confused by the use of the Tiffany word mark in (its) display case signs””.
In fact, Tiffany & Co.’s counsel claims that “Costco admitted that it intentionally used “Tiffany” in signs to describe otherwise unbranded rings, despite knowing that this word was a strong, world-renowned trademark, and without taking any steps to prevent consumer confusion”. And it worked, as the famed jewelry company says its surveys revealed that a number of “Costco members took their rings home believing they were real Tiffany rings”.
Such a likelihood that consumers would be led to believe that there was a connection between the “Tiffany” rings that Costco was selling and the jewelry brand was blostered by the fact that “Costco is famous for offering bargains on authentic brand-name products … including those of high-end brands like Louis Vuitton, Prada, Tag Heuer, Armani, Rolex, Cartier and even Tiffany”, Tiffany & Co. argues. “Since most luxury brand manufacturers like Tiffany do not want their products sold in large unadorned warehouses, they will not supply product to Costco”, forcing the Issaquah, Washington – headquartered multinational retail corporation to “source goods from outside normal distribution channels … acquitting off – price seconds, gray market items and overstock from secret sources”.
Still yet, counsel for Tiffany & Co. notes that while “Costco had no proof that “Tiffany” as a standalone (trademark) is generic (as opposed to serving as an indicator of source), that it was the only way to identify this particular ring style, or that it was ever popularly used descriptively for this design”, the retailer argued – albeit unsuccessfully – that its use of the Tiffany name was a “lawful fair use”.
In addition to shooting down Costco’s arguments about its intent (“Costco’s claims of innocent intent, both in terms of using “Tiffany” descriptively and in trying to shift blame to vendors, are nothing more than self-serving conjecture”.) and damages (“Costco’s argument that actual damages are required before punitive damages may be awarded is wrong”.), Tiffany & Co.’s counsel states that Costco is “seeking reversal (of the district court’s findings) by misstating the evidence, mischaracterizing cases, and ignoring its own failures of proof”. The court should do no such thing, the brief essentially asserts, and instead, “the judgment appealed from should be affirmed in all respects”.