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.
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.
Tiffany & Co. Wins Punitive Damages in New York Trademark Infringement Suit
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
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.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
