Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: August 31, 2017
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comU.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.
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.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

For battery energy storage system (BESS) developers, securing equipment and site control is only part of the development equation. A project must also connect to the electric grid, and increasingly, BESS interconnection is one of the biggest sources of schedule, cost, and contractual risk. Key Takeaways This article is Part 3 of our Battery Storage […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

Director and officer liability increases sharply when a company is in financial distress. Decisions that would draw little attention in a healthy business can later be challenged by creditors, shareholders, bankruptcy trustees, and regulators as breaches of fiduciary duty, fraudulent transfers, or oversight failures. Understanding where that exposure comes from, and how to manage it, […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

For developers pursuing battery energy storage system (BESS) projects, finding the right property is only the beginning. BESS site selection is as much a legal and transactional exercise as a real estate decision, with risk analysis central to the project’s ultimate success. Key Takeaways The core questions for BESS site selection in New York and […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

What should you expect when meeting a litigation attorney about a business dispute? You should expect to describe the dispute in your own words, hand over the most important documents, flag any deadlines or immediate threats, and leave with a clearer picture of the problem, what information is still needed, and the likely next steps. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
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.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!