RSS
District Court Smacks Down Tiffany (Yet Again) In Fight With eBay Over Counterfeit Items
from the will-tiffany-ever-learn? dept
Back in April, we noted the latest in the rather long saga of Tiffany's legal fight against eBay. Tiffany had sued eBay, claiming that the online auction site was legally responsible for policing the site for counterfeit Tiffany items that users were selling. Despite the lack of a clear safe harbor (a la the DMCA or the CDA), the appeals court agreed with the district court that eBay was not liable for the actions of third parties on its site. The one area where the appeals court sent the issue back to the lower court concerned eBay's own advertisements. eBay had apparently run some ads that mentioned the availability of Tiffany products on the site, and Tiffany claimed this made them liable. The court noted that it didn't appear this was false advertising (as there was nothing false in the ads), but that it might confuse or mislead users. It asked the lower court to look into that specific claim.
It didn't take all that long, as the lower court once again sided with eBay and said that eBay did nothing wrong here:
The case isn't quite over yet, as Tiffany keeps appealing various aspects of it, but it certainly doesn't look good for Tiffany -- but does appear very good for anyone who believes in the principles of properly applying liability to those who did the actions, rather than the "easy target" third party (even in the absence of official safe harbors).
It didn't take all that long, as the lower court once again sided with eBay and said that eBay did nothing wrong here:
"Tiffany failed to establish that eBay intentionally set out to deceive the public, much less that eBay's conduct was of an egregious nature sufficient to create a presumption that consumers were being deceived,"You can also read the full opinion thanks to Eric Goldman:
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Like how techdirt always blames patents instead of blaming patent trolls when someone sues over a patent. No hypocrisy here, nope none.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Patents are not a "third party", they are at the core of the issue (of patents).
Or are you saying that when a system is clearly not working, you should ignore the bugs and just blame the users?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Law suits are not a third party, they are at the core of the issue (of lawsuits).
Or are you saying that when a system is clearly not working, you should ignore the bugs and just blame the users?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Big Time Patent Attorney Jumps Into The Patent Trolling Game By Buying 4,500 Patents From Micron
...Such is the state of our broken patent system.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Read up a little bit on the patent thicket in the tech sector. Those aren't patent trolls - those are big companies where waging an ongoing patent-war has become just another standard (and useless) part of daily business.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Tiffany keeps appealing...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1152828/
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment