The recent decision in Tiffany v. eBay, No. 04 Civ. 4607 (RJS), represents a thorough and well-considered exploration of the basis for finding secondary liability in the electronic marketplace for those who facilitate the sale of infringing goods without even selling a product and, conversely, the way for the maker of the marketplace to avoid liability for infringements by those who sell on its site.
Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<i>Tiffany v. eBay</i>
The issue of direct liability is tied to the scope of the defense of nominative fair use: the rights to advertise the availability of trademarked goods by the use of the trademark, whether or not some of the offered goods are counterfeit, and whether or not some or all of the trademarked goods have been diverted from the manufacturer/trademark user's authorized channels of distribution.
The issue of secondary liability is tied to whether or not it sufficed for eBay to be aware that Tiffany counterfeits were being sold on eBay. Tiffany argued that it should suffice that eBay was aware that counterfeit merchandise was being sold for eBay to be obligated to take affirmative pro-active measures to stop the listing of counterfeit products. The determining factor for the court in discounting this argument was the Supreme Court's decision in Inwood Labs, Inc. v. Ives Labs, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 854 (1982). Simply put, generalized knowledge that counterfeiting was taking place did not suffice to impose any obligation, or liability, on eBay. Specific knowledge about which items are infringing, and which seller is listing the items, is required to be shown before any obligation to act could properly be imposed on eBay.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Read These Next
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
When Is a Repair Structural or Nonstructural Under a Commercial Lease?
A common question that commercial landlords and tenants face is which of them is responsible for a repair to the subject premises. These disputes often center on whether the repair is "structural" or "nonstructural."