The company lodged the appeal with the United States Court of Appeals on August 11, asking them to overturn the District Court ruling made on July 14.
“Unfortunately, the trial court incorrectly held that trademark holders and not eBay are responsible for policing the eBay site. The effect of this is that eBay can continue to profit at the expense of consumers and trademark holders," said Patrick Dorsey, Tiffany’s general counsel.
“In our view, this approach makes no sense as a matter of law or policy. Once eBay has reason to know that a specific brand like Tiffany & Co is being widely counterfeited and sold, eBay should be compelled to investigate and take action to protect its customers and stop the illegal conduct.”
Tiffany sued eBay in 2004 after notifying eBay that 73 per cent of a random sample of supposed Tiffany silver jewellery offered on eBay was counterfeit.
The appeal will seek to overturn the trial court’s failure to apply what Tiffany argue are established principles of trademark law.
James B. Swire, a partner at the law firm of Arnold & Porter LLP, stated: “We do not believe the law allows auction sites like eBay to continue to turn a blind eye to this problem while reaping profits from the listing and sale of counterfeit merchandise. Trademark law does not impose a duty on Tiffany to police eBay's site: eBay designed the site and has the responsibility to police it.”
