Questions that arise out of eBay win in Tiffany case

Please read this passage carefully, you’ll be asked questions based on this passage:

A store sells all kind of products on its shelves. Name a product and you’ll find it in some shelf. The store not only stacks variety in terms of products; it also sells all existing brands within a particular category. As if it would not be enough, the store has different variations of a product of a particular brand as well. Like a particular model of a Rolex watch is available in 10 different quality and prices. In short the store stacks authentics and fakes next to each other.

One day a lady enters the shop. She introduces her as an official from Authentic Rolex. She blames the owner of profiting by selling fake Rolex watches. She says this is harming her company.

To this the owner responds: I have no control on the incoming products.

The lady asks why?

To this the owner says: Trucks keep entering his store on their own 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year. So if someone puts fake copies of Rolex watches on the shelves then it's he who needs to be blamed; and not him.

Now the questions:

Q. Is the lady from Rolex right in blaming the store owner for profiting from the sale of Fake Rolex watches?

Q2. Is the store owner’s claim that since products are kept on store shelves by the makers/vendors themselves for which he has no control, hence it’s the maker of fakes who should be blamed and not he; is correct?

You’re asked the above questions, as a recent ruling in favour of EBay, in EBay Vs Tiffany case has posed the similar questions.

Tiffany and other luxury brands have long argued that counterfeit merchandise bearing their names is sold on eBay. The Web commerce company, which does not itself put the goods up for sale, says it has spent millions of dollars to track down counterfeiters and remove such listings; plus it’s not EBay which itself places the fake goods.

The case was seen as a major challenge in the United States to the freedom of Web companies from eBay to Google Inc, which claim that they are merely hosting services, and any trademark infringement lies with others, not them. Google won a major trademark victory in the European Union over similar claims last month.

The court signaled that eBay met its responsibilities in its partnership with brand holders, hence is not at fault in this case.

Although the court gave the ruling in favour of eBay, it opined that, it is true that eBay did not itself sell counterfeit Tiffany goods; only the fraudulent vendors did, and that is in part why we conclude that eBay did not infringe Tiffany's mark; But eBay did affirmatively advertise the goods sold through its site as Tiffany merchandise.

All doors are not closed for Tifanny though and the luxary brand maker can appeal against the ruling at the higher court.

That said, coming back to the example passage and the question, now merged into one:

Who do you think is to blame: The store or the makers/vendors of fake goods? --------

No comments