Case : TIFFANY, INC. vs. EBAY, INC. 2. Can online providers of services (as oppo

Question

Case: TIFFANY, INC. vs. EBAY, INC.

2. Can online providers of services (as opposed to suppliers of products) ever be held liable for contributory trademark infringement? What steps might a business take to reduce liability exposure?

3. As an online service provider, to whom do you owe the greater duty? To your customers who wish to knowingly (i.e., without confusion) buy cheaper, imitation products? Or to unrelated businesses whose valuable intellectual property is being fragrantly violated on your site? Would you take precautions beyond what the law requires to reduce infringing sales?

Explanation / Answer

The concept of "knowledge" of infringement, however, was soon expanded, in a critical
series of cases. In Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corp. v. Concession Svcs., Inc.,
21 the Seventh
Circuit extended the Inwood test for contributory trademark liability to the operator of a flea
market. The court stated that a flea market owner and operator can be held contributorily liable
for sales of counterfeit products by a market vendor if the owner knew, had reason to know or
was "willfully blind" to the infringing sales.22 While the court found it to be axiomatic that a
company

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse C
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.